Debian flamewar (was: OpenOffice doc...)

[Neil Joseph Schelly]

On Wednesday 16 February 2005 11:59 pm, Derek Martin wrote:
> >
> > Debian uses the same kernels as everyone else.
>
> In point of fact, no it doesn't.  For example, Red Hat kernels contain
> many performance enhancements, bug fixes, and functionality

So use those kernels? It's still the same code.  Pick your kernel from 
kernel.org or from various patchsets or what have you.  The kernel really 
doesn't have to do with the distro.

> You keep talking about need...  It isn't always about need.  If I'm
> running Sarge, and the guy next to me has FC3, but his system can do
> neat things that mine can't, I'm gonna want what he has...

You keep telling me about mission critical systems in your business.  You 
insist that stable is necessary for that, but turn the argument around when 
it comes to the shiny bleeding edge desktop and say that Sarge isn't close 
enough.  Pick one point of view and stick with it. If you want the the 
pretty, shiny, modern desktop, then use Sarge and you'll have as much 
stability and reliability as well as up to date.  This late in the game, 
Sarge is practically just an alternate stable branch.  If you can't have that 
"instability" or testing, then you're probably building a server that you can 
use stable on without complaint.

Pick the right release for whatever you're using.  Don't keep coming back to 
me and saying Stable is too old for a desktop and Testing is too unstable for 
a server.  I'm well aware of that, but you're using that argument as a means 
of describing how neither is useful at all.

> > If Debian Testing is unsuitable as business desktop OS, then I'd say
> > nothing in the Linux world is particularly ready yet. just close.
>
> Well, I'd say I don't agree; see above.  I never said it was
> impossible to use Sarge as a desktop distro; there are simply better
> choices.

And I keep missing the reason why?  I run Sarge on all my desktops and have 
never had a problem with it or been missing some pretty software or 
something.  You mention a video resolution problem, but that seems like an 
odd issue. That is autodetected by X when it starts for the most part, 
assuming you selected the appropriate resolution and type (LCD/CRT) of 
monitor in debconf, when installing.

> I'm sorry, but your point is just wrong.  I can't do that, because it
> would be lying.  It ISN'T stable.  THERE IS NO NEW DEVELOPMENT IN A
> STABLE RELEASE.  When everyone's systems break because we apt-get
> upgrade to broken changes in testing, I'd get fired.  You can't try to
> tell me that it wouldn't happen; I've SEEN it happen.

New development happens in unstable/sid. I've said it way too many times now 
that, this close to a stable release, testing is just as solid on a desktop.  
To call it "stable" as an adjective is not lying.  Calling it by the 
stable/testing/unstable release names is just semantics.  If you recount 
experience from way in the past about testing breaking things a year or more 
ago, there's a good reason.  Stable was new enough that you didn't need to 
use Testing for modern software.

> > Take that assumption and you realize that everything you said
> > above is meaningless.
>
> That assumption is patently false.

You're not very good at math are you.  That assumption is supposed to be made 
to guide the discussion in the right direction.  Either we work with that 
assumption or we work on discussing that assumption.  Not both at the same 
time which makes my responses to you as randomly guided as the back and forth 
arguments you're making.

If you disagree, that's alright.  Since you disagree with that, there's no 
point in further discussing here.  You obviously just have a preference for 
other setups and a lack of patience for things that aren't what you're used 
to.  There's no doubt it is different.  I'm not alone in thinking Testing is 
a good desktop OS and I'm not wrong either just because you disagree.  I am 
more familiar with Debian systems though, so certainly it makes sense that I 
stick to what I know and you stick to what you know.

> I have tried it, and it was in fact Sarge which caused the problem I
> was refering to above , when it was testing.  I installed it last year
> when I was in Korea, also.  I found it lacking features that I was
> accustomed to, so I got rid of it.
Features like what?  Sounds like what I said above - it was different and you 
didn't like that, but missing features?

> Incidently, around the time I had my troubles with testing, one of my
> coworkers actually tried selling the idea of using Sarge/testing on
> all our systems...   If we had done that at that time, the whole
> environment would have become useless that day, and I'd have been out
> of a job.  Fortunately, a different coworker pointed out that at that
> specific point in time, Debian unstable was actually more stable (i.e.
> reliable) than testing was.  We decided to stay with Red Hat.  ;-)
That's a great story, really.  It sounds more like FUD than anything.  If 
testing was more unstable than unstable, as you say, then I would have to 
wonder just how quickly you were jumping the gun on that release... If that 
really were the case, then it was really way too early for using Testing.
-N