From: Silvan (dmmcintyr_at_users.sourceforge.net)
To: email@example.com Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 20:05:07 -0400
On Sunday 02 May 2004 02:20 pm, David Fokkema wrote:
> > Well, I took "isn't supported by Woody" to mean a pure and proper Woody
> > without backports.
> You're right, of course. Right now, I'm trying to figure out if I like
> the idea of woody with backports better than sid which broke some of my
> stuff recently. Not my system, I can fix that. But the 'newer'
> ghostscript 8 is far worse (as in unusable) than the latest ghostscript
> 7, for example.
It *is* a perennial problem. I ran Woody for a long time, but I'm a
contributing developer for an application that has to run on KDE 3.x, with
recent versions of automake and various other things. Everyone else is
running SuSE or Mandrake, and they always have stuff two or five versions
ahead of Woody. Keeping Woody backported was getting tedious. Backports of
this and that aren't always compatible with each other in combination.
"Woody: Backport Edition" almost qualifies as a distro unto itself, and IMHO
it's far messier than present day Sid.
In spite of the perpetual problem of choosing the best compromise between
stability and having sufficiently recent versions of things to get the job
done (or merely to satisfy a hankering for better eye candy), it's still more
comfortable here than any other distro I've tried. Putting together a distro
is a very hard job, and Debian does the job better than anyone.
-- Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <firstname.lastname@example.org> Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621 http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com