On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 01:17:42PM +0200, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote: > At the beginning of my comments, there has been a statement from Rudy: > "We have no easy-way-to-get-it to tell people why they would want to > use Debian. Ubuntu, on the other hand, has achieved to do so, and what > they tell that we can't? nothing." and as his message continues > (25.08.2006 00:51) > > I have objected, that if viewed from angle of average-Joe-user, Debian > lacks many things to compare with Ubuntu. > > Whoever wants to use computer, not do hacking and testing, will reach > for "stable" system. Comparing latest *stable* release of Debian with > latest *stable* release of Ubuntu is therefore appropriate, like it or > not. It's not fault of Ubuntu if the results are not too attractive for
Then lets look at how stable ubuntu stable is or is not. I know I've seen posts on these lists suggesting that ubuntu stable tends to pull in things from debian unstable[1] and is therefore less stable. If that really is the case then comparing debian stable to ubuntu stable is in fact not a fair comparison (or rather comparing *only* versions of upstream software is not reasonable). Sometime ago I read suggestions that running debian testing is approximately equivalent to running other distributions' stable releases, however I can't seem to find where that came from (too much chatter to pick anything up in a quick google search). So if we're going to talk about a fair comparison, let's make sure we're comparing stability and number of bugs in the release as well. Also, what about bugs that get introduced by other bug or security fixes? How often do they happen in debian compared to other projects, and when they do, how quickly are they found and fixed? What about Debian stable compared to RHEL or Ubuntu server in a serer environment with Debian testing compared to fedora and ubuntu on the desktop? I personally use debian stable on my home server, with a mixed stable/volatile/testing/(few)unstable set of packages on my desktop. The truth is though, once Etch comes out I will probably stick with stable. Certain projects like OpenOffice.org (2.0.x) and Mozilla (1.5.x) are starting to mature to the point where I won't feel that upgrading them (aside from security fixes) frequently is necessary. "Back in the day" (late 80's, early 90's) users of DOS, and then Windows 3.1, had an os that didn't change much for years at a time, and once you bought a software package you were usually stuck with that version until you bought another one. I think part of what has happened with gnu/linux is that it has taken a significant amount of time to mature with some major components (gnome/kde, mozilla, ooo) only being relative newcomers when compared to apps like MS Word (first release in the early 80's for DOS). > Sarge (note: Sarge! I don't compare Woody.) If Etch was claimed > stable at the time, I would compare him, however he has some half [1]http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/08/msg01116.html -- GnuPG Key Fingerprint 86 F5 81 A5 D4 2E 1F 1C http://gnupg.org And that's my crabbing done for the day. Got it out of the way early, now I have the rest of the afternoon to sniff fragrant tea-roses or strangle cute bunnies or something. -- Michael Devore
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
