Most stable and tested distribution?
in [General Linux]
|
Prev: passive mode ftp high ports driving me nuts
Next: equivalent of f.circleup or CirculateUp for fvwm2
From: J G Miller on 7 Jan 2010 11:12 On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 05:52:17 +0530, Balwinder S Dheeman wrote: > every distribution including Slackware, Fedora, Arch and Pentoo sucks, > but Debian sucks quite a little ;) Linux, or rather Tux, sucks more effectively. ;+) <http://www.gfxwallpapers.COM/images/wallpapers/ linux_penguin_windows_sucks_3d_b-364263.jpeg>
From: Moe Trin on 7 Jan 2010 14:49 On Wed, 6 Jan 2010, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.misc, in article <Pine.LNX.4.64.1001061630050.23515(a)darkstar.example.net>, Michael Black wrote: >I tried Debian 9 years ago, and since I was trying it on a really >limited computer, I had to do a tiny install. All that fuss >about dependencies was very daunting for a first time installer. Nine years ago... ``popular'' distributions of that era wanted 32 Megs of RAM for a text based install, and up to 128 Megs for the windoze wannabe style. Diskspace was ~400 Megs up to 4.3 Gigs. >I dumped it because it didn't have Pine, that I needed, and at >that stage I wasn't ready to try to install it separately. Pine had a license that Debian (and some others) had a problem with. >I found a beatup copy of "Slackware for Dummies" at the local >bookstore, the price was really great considering the CDs were >still in there, and I used that since it had Pine. It was a whole >lot easier to install what I could on that 240meg hard drive "Slackware for Dummies" was published in March 2000 and came with a Slackware 7.0 GPL release. Slack 7.0 was released October 29, 1999, and 7.1 on June 25, 2000 followed by Slack 8.0 on July 2, 2001. Thus, 7.0 wasn't _that_ far out of date. A common problem with dead-tree books containing distributions is that the production delays from the author doing the writing until the book appears (new) at the book store can be about 5 to 6 months. Used books (as well as those in the bargain bin) might be cheap/free, but the distribution on the CD is also obsolete. I don't know many people who would advocate allowing a Slackware 96 install (2.0.0 kernel) to be visible on the Internet in 2004, yet a neighborhood bookstore had several copies for sale in May of 2004 (about the time Slackware 10.0 came out). Now, it you do like these old distributions, one place to look is ftp://ibiblio.org/pub/historic-linux/distributions/ where you can find Slackware 1.1.2 (all 54 floppies) from 1994 among others. Old guy
From: Darren Salt on 7 Jan 2010 14:58 I demand that Sidney Lambe may or may not have written... > On comp.os.linux.misc, Darren Salt > <news(a)youmustbejoking.demon.cu.invalid> wrote: >> I demand that Sidney Lambe may or may not have written... >> [snip; about John Hasler] >>> And an employee of Debian... >> That's an interesting assertion, given that Debian has no employees... > That's what they are in fact. Yes. They are indeed no employees of Debian. > If you want to fall for the doublespeak, go ahead. That'd be your killfile doublespeak, right? Where you say "I've killfiled you" but mean something like "ouch, that's too close to the truth, better back off"? :-) -- | Darren Salt | linux at youmustbejoking | nr. Ashington, | Doon | using Debian GNU/Linux | or ds ,demon,co,uk | Northumberland | Army | + Vermin Media user? http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000646.html Everything's coming up roses.
From: Sidney Lambe on 7 Jan 2010 18:35 On comp.os.linux.misc, Darren Salt <news(a)youmustbejoking.demon.cu.invalid> wrote: > I demand that Sidney Lambe may or may not have written... > >> On comp.os.linux.misc, Darren Salt >> <news(a)youmustbejoking.demon.cu.invalid> wrote: >> >>> I demand that Sidney Lambe may or may not have written... >>> [snip; about John Hasler] >>> >>>> And an employee of Debian... >>> >>> That's an interesting assertion, given that Debian has no >>> employees... > >> That's what they are in fact. > > Yes. They are indeed no employees of Debian. > >> If you want to fall for the doublespeak, go ahead. > > That'd be your killfile doublespeak, right? Where you say "I've > killfiled you" but mean something like "ouch, that's too close > to the truth, better back off"? :-) > Great. Another dickless loser who gets his tiny rocks off wandering the Usenet and insulting people while he's hiding behind the Internet. <shrug> Let him have his pathetic pleasures. Sid
From: Dan C on 11 Jan 2010 01:01
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 05:11:01 +0000, Gunnar Gren wrote: >> So, since I still want to switch to linux, I want some suggestions on >> which distribution is the most stable and most well-tested. I don't >> care that much about cutting-edge features, and I can wait for a while >> until a new version of some software hits the official repositories. >> But this is important: When the system asks to update itself, there >> shouldn't be a chance that it will break X, or gnome, or KDE, or the >> kernel, or whatever. >> >> Suggestions? > *BSD > opensolaris > solaris > HP-UX > AIX I guess you missed the part up there above where he said "I still want to switch to Linux", eh? -- "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". "Bother!" said Pooh, as he wiped the vomit from his chin. Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/ |