[Eug-lug] Free O'Reilly book

[Alan]

T. Joseph CARTER wrote:
> 
> 
> Question for you: I just built a machine for $300.  Can YOU install Debian
> stable on it?  (The answer is no.)

_I_ could, yes. Could I do it with the standard installation CD? No.
Could I do with a custom built installation CD? Sure could.
(Assuming of course, you haven't built a ringer with hardware 
unsupported by Linux. heh)

   You can't run Debian stable on any machine with an
> ATA100 or ATA133 chipset.

Huh, that'd be news to my two machines with ATA100 on them.
Is it an "official Debian.org" kernel? Nope.
Is it still Debian stable? As far as I'm concerned, yes.

Now, you could make the argument that any kernel that's not apt-gettable 
doesn't qualify as "Debian Stable", but you make that argument for any 
distribution that needed to be patched to support the latest hardware.

Damnit..here I am getting myself involved in another silly debate.

Let's just say that yes, in stock form, stable is a bit aged, but there 
is nothing stopping anyone competent from getting as bleeding edge as 
they want with it.

> 
> 
> On top of all of that, at the time, the Debian people said they were
> rewriting their installer and it would be about a year before it was ready
> for its first real test.  In that time, people with new machines could not
> install Debian at all, and after it only if they went after the
> experimental new sarge installer for another 6-8 months.  Them's the
> breaks, say Debian.

Them is the breaks. Debian isn't for everyone. It's conservative, and 
probably overly concerned with "the right thing"(which of course, no one 
  can agree on). But to some people these are strengths, and denigrating 
it just because you don't happen to agree with it, well, that's just bad 
form.
Myself, I've never understood the installer hatred that some folk have, 
it's always worked fine for me.


> 
> Okay, Debian stable has a policy that no new software goes in.  Period.
> If there is a need for a backport of a security patch, it is backported.
> There are times (required boot drivers!) when this doesn't make sense, but
> the powers that be insist that the policy must be followed to the letter.
> Consider that.
> 

And it's a policy I agree with.
If you want to play with the bleeding-edge, there's unstable for ya.
You want the middle ground, testing is your best bet.

Stable is supposed to be just that. Stable.
Stable does not mean "Hey, let's install the latest IDE patch and find 
out 3 months later it has a data loss condition under high load".

I usually run a mixed system because I do find, like you, that sometimes 
stable is a little too conservative, but for the most part, it does what 
I need it to do.


-ajb
(Stepping out of the debate - for real this time)