> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Phillips [mailto:a.phillips@met.no]
> >>>>> "David" == David Brodbeck <DavidB@???> writes:
>
> >> I simply ended up doing a minimal installation and getting what
> >> I wanted as sources and compiling them myself. Eventually you
> >> find Debian is so out of date that stuff won't compile (may I
> >> mention libstdc++.so.5 and stable).
>
> David> That's why I don't run Debian Stable. It's just too old,
> David> too out of date. I do at least a partial upgrade to
> David> testing on every system I install. Debian's development
> David> cycle is just too slow for Stable to be a useful OS.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Why do people post such comments to mailing lists ? You come with a
> sweeping statement that is obviously inaccurate when one looks at all
> the different scenarios where computers are used.
I suppose it depends on what software you're using, and how quickly it's
updated. The author of HylaFAX, for example, actively objects to people
running the version packaged with Debian Stable because so many bugs in it
are fixed in the newer release. Ask a question about the Stable version and
the first thing he'll tell you is "upgrade, then ask me again if that
doesn't help." The situation is similar with Samba and Exim. If you're
running applications that don't change much in ways that are important, I
can see how Stable's release cycle would be attractive. You can't expect
much support from upstream maintainers if you run it, though.
I use Debian anyway, because the ability of apt to handle multiple releases
simultaneously gets rid of most of the pain of pulling in newer versions of
packages where it's important. (Anyone who is running Debian and isn't
familiar with this needs to read
http://jaqque.sbih.org/kplug/apt-pinning.html.)
