[kubuntu-users] Re: [kubuntu-users] Re: KDE 3.5.6 released w Kubuntu packages

[Bry Paula Melvin]

On Fri, 2007-01-26 at 19:19 +0200, Donn wrote:
> > Stable in my sentence above means unchanging.
> Okay, this will sound harsh and flame-like, bear in mind that I am a 
> determined Linux user: Stable is a misleading word. What should be said 
> is "static" or "stagnant". 
> 
> This problem of distros being left "frozen" in time is a real one. It means 
> Linux can never compete with Windows because it's not one O/S it's a new one 
> every 6 months. Each of those islands of O/S are left alone to gradually sink 
> behind the horizon as new software releases keep pace with the latest 
> release. Something is wrong with this picture.
> 
> I do not say this to insult or hurt feelings. I say it with some insight to 
> the complexity of a system like Ubuntu. Even so, I still feel that it's a 
> problem. At the very least users should be able to upgrade to the latest 
> Ubuntu from *any* prior version without having to go through all the animals 
> inbetween.
> 
> 
> 
> Donn.
> 
I have to agree with Mr Riddel on this one.
I use 606 BECAUSE it is "stable" "stagnant" or possibly somewhat
"dormant" vs. fluid.


 I actually would like to see SOME things done in backports like 
OOo, HPILP, gutenprint etc, but accept that it may not be practical to
do so.

People like me (small business) use 606 as an alternative to RHEL or
Novell desktop/SuSE. We want something that is going to not have us
asking questions and fixing the computers all the time. Once we get
something added we want it to work for a good long period again before
we risk breaking our systems with something new.

I don't see this as a handicap vs windows. In fact I still DO have both
a windows98 and ME machine that do specific tasks these machines are
Frozen at an update level preceding the final one specifically to avoid
conflicts with essential software. We're not alone: businesses all over
do this. FWIW we have been able to cut down on using these obsolete
machines drastically lately thanks to the release of Crossover6.

We also tend to diverge from the "pure" distro which can cause other
problems if we were to constantly update unnecessarily. EX I have
several ppc and pc they all run dapper. They all have HPILP 1.6.12 later
sane and later XSANE packages compiled by us along with some other items
not even IN repositories these have been tested by us for our work,
passed muster and kept to give full functionality to newer equipment.

If something doesn't add an important function we don't really want to
add it. Yes windows has constant updates in a totally linear manner.
That's why businesses often don't implement those updates. Updates often
break systems. Because businesses may need to add software NOT in the
repos this complicates matters. 

There is also a chain effect. Should I put OUR hplip for dapper in the
repos You would also need to remove all the repos scanning packages hpoj
hpijs foomatic, and more, as there are conflicts with overwriting files
that are in multiple pacakges. at some point the LTS distro would be
getting into unstable untested area do to the vast differences between
machines. Businesses add change things too but at a slower pace...for us
items pertaining to graphics production, but not across the entire
spectrum of software. We STILL have the stable base of Dapper to do our
custom additions to. We only "stick our neck out" in areas applicable
directly to our work.

Bryann