Debian or Ubuntu?
mgb-ubuntu at yosemite.net
Mon May 12 19:59:22 UTC 2008
On Mon May 12 2008 12:02:21 Derek Broughton wrote:
> Mike Bird wrote:
> > (But Ubuntu is generally more up-to-date if you need recent software
> > versions or support for recent hardware.)
> This, though, has been much less of a problem since they finally kicked
> Sarge out of the nest. One of the major boosts to Ubuntu in the early days
> was the thought of getting regular and frequent version upgrades. Sarge
> waited _years_ for release, and many of us early Ubuntu adopters chose
> Ubuntu because we thought Sarge would never be released. I'm still
> subscribed to debian-announce, and they seem to be back on track.
Debian Etch was only half a year late, but that was more than a year ago.
We have Thinkpads running Debian but they have to use a mix of Testing
and Unstable. Debian Testing is a time sink, due to the frequent
updates. Debian Unstable is risky, but it's needed for the audio and
graphics drivers: linux-image-2.6, xorg-drivers, nvidia-kernel, nvidia-glx.
Debian would be much more useful if they updated just Stable's kernel,
xorg, nividia and similar hardware-related pieces every six months.
More information about the ubuntu-users