[lug] Help installing debian at the install fest?

[David Morris]

On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 12:52:47AM -0600, Nate Duehr wrote:
> 
> On Jul 12, 2007, at 9:19 PM, David L. Anselmi wrote:
> 
> >David Morris wrote:
> >[...]
> >>For most users, use the 'stable' release.  If you know what
> >>you are doing with Linux and need more current versions of
> >>applications use 'testing', but prepare for some
> >>applications to be broken from time to time.  Avoid
> >>'unstable' unless you want lots of pain and frustration.
> >
> >For most users running mission critical apps, maybe.  For the  
> >things people tend to use WinXP for, I'd say testing is better.
> >
> >"Lots of pain and frustration" for me has been 2 problems in the  
> >past 8 months.  One was my smartcard reader stopped working.  But  
> >it was unsupported and shouldn't have worked in the first place-- 
> >nothing to do with unstable.  The other was that the kernel updated  
> >ahead of my wireless drivers.  My fault for a) using a kernel that  
> >was too new, and b) using wireless hardware that doesn't have open  
> >drivers.  But I know what to watch for and it won't happen again.   
> >And fixing it was a matter of booting the previous kernel and  
> >removing the new one.
> >
> >So I think "lots" is an overstatement.

I'm guessing you don't spend much time on anything other
than an x86 or AMD64 architecture?  I've used Debian on
several sparc systems over the years and 'testing' is, in
my experience, constantly riddled with bugs in sparc
packages.  I tried 'unstable' once and the system was barely
usable.

For an x86 system (and probably amd64 too, now) I agree that
testing and unstable are probably usable *most* of the time
so long as you know what you are doing when troubles arise.
Assuming no fundamental changes are underway, of course.

> >>If old packages are likely to be a problem for you than
> >>you do *not* want to be using Debian. Ubuntu (or
> >>Kubuntu) is a good alternative.
> >
> >I disagree.  Packages that get old for 6 months and then
> >need a  large update are more painful for me than those
> >that update every  week and don't guarantee problem free
> >updates.  I can understand  people who don't like
> >frequent updates that cause unexpected  problems but I'm
> >much happier never having to ask "how well will  the
> >upgrade from etch to lenny work?"  People who don't like
> >unexpected problems should probably get someone else to
> >manage  their computers for them ;-)
> 
> It all depends on how much you value your time, and what
> you're  attempting to do.  Stable is great for servers,
> and old for desktop  machines.

That is a good point, it does depend on your use.  On most
of my machines (servers and workstations at the office) I
demand 100% stability and rarely need the latest versions of
software.  Most times I do need the latest version I
typically have to compile it myself anyways. The rest of the
time, backports.org has been sufficient.

As for large updates in a 6 month old package (or 2 *year*
old package, for that matter) I've done many dist upgrades
between stable releases since the days of 'slink' (Debian
2.1).  Major upgrades were indeed a minor nightmare for some
of the earlier dist upgrades (e.g. slink to potato), but
they have gotten steadily easier over the years.  I upgraded
three systems to 'etch' when it became the stable release
and they all went nearly flawlessly, including a laptop
which started out running 'woody'.  YMMV, of course, but
I've had no problems lately.

--David