Why are packages being held back

[Matthew Flaschen]

Chris Miller wrote:

 > Realistically Windows is built the wrong way from the very ground up. 
  Start reading up on
> MSDN about drivers for Windows and things of that nature and you'll
> appreciate the simplicity of Linux.

Linux has its own legacy complexity.  For instance, why is the delete 
command rm?  Because it has always been, back to when the memory 
difference between delete and rm was important (supposedly).  There are 
other examples.

>> upgrade, they sell you the new product.  It isn't a fix, it is an expense.
>> When have you purchased a Microsoft product you didn't get a patch for
>> within a week or so, and then with regularity until the next upgrade.
>>
>>  When Microsoft went from Win 98 to WinXP or whatever change they made, they
>> called it an upgrade.  That is what you just reported in your email.  2
>> upgrades.  In Linux, the terminology is similar, except an upgrade is not a
>> fix, it is an improvement.  There are very few patches to LINUX products,
>> because they are made as close to perfect before you get them as is
> 
> lol.  Linux has more than it's fair share of bugs and broken bits.
> However, Linux is more intelligent about how it handles them and about
> how it structures the whole OS so it can recover from those errors
> more gracefully.

Also, apt updates /all/ the programs on your system, while Windows 
Update updates just Windows (and maybe Office).  This could never be 
replicated in the Windows/proprietary world.  It is specific to free 
software.

>>  Haven't you noticed you never need to defrag your Linux.  That is the
>> reason.  You don't need a tool you will never use.  By the way, if it says
> 
> That's because Linux's default file systems are self defragmenting.
> They still are subject to defragmentation, but that's taken care of
> during error scanning.  The algorithm treats fragmentation as a minor
> error.

Of course they still get fragemented.  But I agree that Linux file 
systems handle fragmentation better.

>> patch, install that too, it will fix something; it is just that that will
>> hardly ever happen with LINUX, and it is still better for your computer.
> 
> It happens quite often that it fixes things.  Software is just such a
> complex thing that even "upgrades" may inadvertently fix broken
> things.  However, most of the bug fixes are so specific that the only
> way to duplicate the bug is by having certain hardware.  Talk about
> tough to find...

I don't know about that...  There are still a /lot/ of 
architecture-independent bugs.

>>  Take a deep breath and relax and press install.  If you are using Kubuntu
>> by any chance, they have a program provided by their KDE application called
>> Adept Manager that will blow your mind.  About 22,000 programs are there for
> 
> I'd suggest Synaptic.  Adept is still under heavy development and
> hasn't yet been certified to be even comprehensible to someone other
> than a core developer.

Certified by who?  I have no problem with Adept, though I often use the 
command-line for quick tasks.

> There's tons of Beta stuff for Linux if you want it.  I ran Kubuntu
> beta for a long while (then it went stable on me).  The beta stuff for
> Linux is quite stable

All this means is that they're conservative in what they call beta (true 
for some projects, not for all).  If you want the cutting edge, you do 
have to go to alpha/CVS/etc., and give up some of that stability.


Matt Flaschen