On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 01:53:51AM -0300, Bruno Buys wrote: [snip thoughts on running sid] > > > > > And do you think it pays off, to manage your machine this way? I mean, > is sid worth the work?
I've never run anything but sid, so I can't compare the work. I just know, in my situation, sid has performed very well as compared to win xp. With win xp I had to run routine spyware checking, routine checkingof virus logs, etc. THat work is replaced by a little house keeping and updating of sid. Its a more than fair trade, to my mind, for the freedom of debian. With time, I have come to think that, in reality, > every program that I tried to install I succeeded, in one way or > another. Be it by compiling, checkinstalling, apt-get... which is why > debian is my choice. Except for one or another stubborn (but not > critical) softwares, I have everything I need. Back in my suse days, > compilation was a faded-to-failure option. > I also have the feeling that the more you learn, the less important the > differences between debian flavours are. My current sarge install has > things from backports, a bunch of compiled software, and even some small > things from etch and sid (the mix that ron called 'recipe for disaster', > hehehe...) so it's not even a out-of-the-box sarge system, anymore. if you are doing all this, then I think, IMHO, that you are certainly capable of maintaining a sid system. But, I can't truly speak foryour abilities or for your needs. If you have mission critical operations then you should run sid carefully, with regular backups and all that stuff. It has been my experience that sid works very well most of the time. But, I have only run it for a year and half or so, so my experience is limited. perhaps others will chime in with there experiences running sid for longer periods of time. the > exiv2 package, the reason for this thread, was installed by > checkinstall, for example, with minimal effort. Now I have a .deb which > is reinstallable, if needed. Isn't this one of the beauties of the whole > thing? The flexibility and freedom of choice debian gives us? absolutely. I've become a zealot... :) > That's why i'm asking you if is sid worth the extra work. > as I said, my experience is neither deep nor long enought to really answer that question. I do know, though, that running sid gives me a very modern computing environment such that I really notice no "lag" in technology. There is nothing my windows friends are doing that I can't do... except play those damn encrypted .wma files... > The situation of sarge today is not as bad as the last days of woody. > When I first installed it, a default install was like ext2, kernel 2.2, > kde 2.2(?... can't remember exactly..?). By that time, everybody was > runing kernel 2.6... > > >If you're nervous about taking the plunge, maybe you could dual boot > >sarge and sid for a while? also, I think you have to be careful using > >--get|set-selections across releases as package names change... > > > > > I just remembered I must have a qemu virtual sid machine lying around in > a backup. Its the only choice here, as I completely lack the disk space > for a dual boot. hmmm... if you have room to put together a qemu image of sid, how can you NOT have room for a dual boot with sid? they would be the same size I think. Regardless, I don't want to appear to be pushing you into running sid. I am only relating my experiences, which have been nothing but positive. It is up to you to make that decision. I would hate to see youtry it on my advice and end up in a mess. ;-0 It is my considered opinion, though, that running sid is not as scary as some owuld make it out to be. That said, I was coding 6502 assembler in 1981, so some of this comes pretty naturally. However, since you are running a mixed system with backports and self-compiled stuff, you clearly are well on your way to have the skills necessary to maintain probably just about any system. good luck with whatever you decide. my .02 A
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
