+------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | On (12/10/05 18:03), kangja wrote: | | Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 18:03:51 +0800 | From: kangja <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | To: debian-user@lists.debian.org | Subject: Re: Re: debian vs ubuntu and knoppix | | i don't understand all these variants. why not just continue with debian | alone? if you find some way to improve on debian, why use it to produce | another branch? E.g. the bootable cd of Knoppix, why not just have a | bootable cd for debian?
Because the setup is different, some distros use debian packages, others have their own repositories using the debian packaging system (much like other "redhat"-ish distros do with rpm). Would be like why use another rpm distro when you can just use Fedora. They are the inventor, yet other people may do the job better for their needs/desires. Just different choices because Debian wasn't good enough. Also debian stable historically has been very old on packages and unstable was the only way to stay current, till recently when unstable was truely unstable. Just preference really. People in distros (at least I know of Ubuntu and Debian) work together for the most part, not battle. | | kangja | | | -- | To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] | with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
