> > > i don't see any point to using upgrade instead of dist-upgrade. > > > > But surelly upgrade has some use, I mean, there's probably some > > situation in which you would prefer to use upgrade in place of > > dist-upgrade, could someone please shed some light in this isue? > > I'm going back to using "upgrade" and not "dist-upgrade". The way I see > it now, "dist-upgrade" will update existing packages that I have > installed, but it will also *add* new packages that are marked as > required, recommended, etc by some maintainer. The way I see it, I don't > have a "pure" Debian distro anymore. I have my own customized one, with
Mm thats how I see it too.. > This same feature is what annoyed me with Redhat and Mandrake. I would and for the same reason.. If your a bit inexperienced you always get put off customising stuff if it feels like its either going to get broken by, or break the next upgrade...and linux is only at its best if you do (imho) One thing I like about Debian is the way it let me install a very basic system, add stuff as I needed it, and keep things manageable. With Mandrake I felt I was falling over configs for a bunch of programs, I didnt know if they were related, cooperated or redundant... with Debian I could make sense of things and learn how to do stuff without any of that.. If future releases tend towards the "fill up the HD, its all good" attitude I will have to stop upgrading or look at another Distro.. which I REALLY dont want to do after finding Debian .. > install either distro and then purge things I'll never use (Emacs, for > example). amen, thats the first to go here too.. I think it's common knowledge that vim is far superior (ok ok I know I know) They say Debian is not so newbie friendly but I think the opposite is true in many respects now because of the packaging thing.. I think its a Good Thing(TM) and a nice way to differentiate a distro by making it modular.. like the TASKS stuff.. allow people to install just what they need and get to know it, rather than get overwhelmed..
