[lug] Music manager

[Daniel Webb]

On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 08:01:36PM -0600, David L. Anselmi wrote:

> I don't think either is true.
> 
> - they support less software so they have fewer bugs to start with
> - they support fewer architectures and fewer configuration choices so 
> their fixes are simpler
> - they pay people to work on Ubuntu so the get things done quicker (more 
> hours per day spent on the distro)
> - they may well have different standards as to what constitutes a 
> release critical bug

Ok, the fewer architectures bit I understand.  How does the "support less
software" idea work?  I often want to try some fairly obscure software I find
in Debian stable, and it nearly always just works, although towards the end of
the release cycle it's often so outdated that if I like it and use it a lot, I
build a source package from unstable and see if that works.  So with Ubuntu
what would happen?  Would I just use the Debian package if it wasn't a part of
Ubuntu?  Would it normally come from testing or unstable if I did that?

I guess what I'm getting at is: what are the downsides, if any, of Ubuntu vs.
Debian testing assuming I'm using i386 hardware?  

Speaking of source packages, one of my biggest pet peaves about Debian is that
everything in unstable depends on the unstable libc, which makes mixed
stable/unstable systems impossible.  Yet you can build source packages for
most of them, and they nearly always work fine.  Is this just a "cover your
ass" move by package maintainers or laziness?