Richard, > I'm not convinced I'd go for a daily build, or the testing distro, either, > but that's another issue.
I used daily 'testing' installers more often and there never was a problem with the installer or base system. If there would be a minor bug with a desktop app, later. then you can update or change app. It is strategic recommendation. I was using stable installers in the past and always ended up with upgrade to testing, then unstable, because i wanted more recent features. For example, latest video codecs, or new website features (css3, html5, flash). Especially big internet players never wait for Debian with their upgrades ... Then, upgrading from stable to testing can be quite cumbersome, since the distance can be huge, but from testing to unstable is not such a big deal. Agreed, Ubuntu always is an option and the most popular. But over the last years, whenever i installed the latest Ubuntu (up to 11) for someone else (or did remote support), i found so many deficits and bugs, that i always ended up with installing better or less annoying apps, or just newer versions, and then the whole thing just sucks. And i finally switched back to plain Debian. It was rather surprising to me too. But even inexperienced users have specific requirements (even when they got used to Windows or Ubuntu since long) and then you can adjust a plain Debian much easier. Like, resolving dependencies when upgrading certain packages (or all) to unstable. Of course YMMV and there are good reasons for staying stable too. It's also true that even trivial problems can be mountain ranges for someone who no idea what's up. > ie replace ia64 with amd64. ia64 is for Itanium machines, which is mostly > expensive servers. oops...so 'amd' is for intel too ? I always forget it and confuse it....sorry! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-laptop-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120322021638.1c61d...@mirrors.kernel.org
