Why are packages being held back

[Matthew Flaschen]

Chris Miller wrote:
>> Linux has its own legacy complexity.  For instance, why is the delete
>> command rm?  Because it has always been, back to when the memory
> 
> rm is short for "remove"

I know.

> 
>> difference between delete and rm was important (supposedly).  There are
>> other examples.
> 
> Think different, man.  It's delete/rm. It doesn't matter.  Take a deep
> breath.  Let go.  It's okay...

It is okay, but it's also legacy over-complexity.

>> 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.
> 
> Which is kinda nice.  However, you can manually install other bits of
> software in Linux (NOT wine, think Eclipse & Java & stuff) that won't
> automatically update.  It's not perfect, but it's a  lot better than
> this MS garbage.

True, but these programs at least /could/ be packaged for apt.

>> I don't know about that...  There are still a /lot/ of
>> architecture-independent bugs.
> 
> But that's over a lot more code.  Windows bugs occur over code equal
> to roughly the size of the Linux kernel itself.  The Linux kernel has
> more code than the Windows kernel & system, but most Linux bugs are
> driver-related.  The rest of the bugs are from the software, which is
> separate and different.

Fair enough.  I was thinking of a typical GNU/Linux distribution as a 
whole.  What "should" be included in the OS is debatable.

> I'm still addicted to aptitude, but Adept isn't safe for normal use.

Isn't safe?

> Many core Adept developers admit this.

That's strange because I've never had a significant failure in Adept.

> It's great that you like it,
> that's good because it means that there will be more diversity in the
> number of GUIs built for the same task.  However, generally speaking,
> from a UI Design perspective, Adept isn't all that good.

And aptitude is a better UI? ;)

>> 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.
> 
> Alpha stuff doesn't always compile.  If you want the most stable thing
> ever, try Debian Stable.  The software is ancient, but the reliability
> is greater than any other thing I could compare it to.

Okay..., and I agree alphas don't always compile, but when they do 
(possibly after your own tweaking), they're the cutting edge.

Matt Flaschen