Binary incompatibility of Linux distributions

[anthony baldwin]

Dotan Cohen wrote:
>> Personally, I find it odd that Ubuntu, being supposedly aimed at helping
>> the Windows world to Linux, doesn't focus more on stability and less on
>> cutting edge.
> 
> Probably because the cutting edge features are meant to compete with
> Windows features, and Windows traditionally is not considered a stable
> OS.

This is what makes me question my use of ubuntu.
I mean, do enjoy the rather large repos, and the community, but, in all 
truth, I need a stable system, and I don't need a lot of cutting edge, 
nauseating desktop effects and bloat, and I don't like when updates 
break stuff and I have to waste time fixing stuff that would be better 
used working to pay the rent.  The ubuntu release schedule is a bit 
dizzying, imho...
LTS, unstable, LTS, unstable...
I think every release should be stable and supported...hello.
Especially if aimed at n00bs.
But I don't need spinning 3d desktop environments to handle stuff for 
me, anyway.  I mean, I prefer openbox, ion3, dwm, for window managers, 
something that stays out of the way and lets me work.
I just moved back to ubuntu, which I had tried c. Dapper era, after 
using PCLinuxOS for a while, which was good, but I was using PCFluxboxOS 
or TinyME, and when those split off from PCLOS, but still did updates 
from the PCLOS repos, stuff got broken, and I got frustrated.
But I like stable, and lite, for efficiency's sake.
In truth, I'm now using #! crunchbang linux, which is ubuntu+openbox, so 
it is lite and crunchy, and is nice.

/tony


-- 

http://www.photodharma.com
art & photos | tony baldwin

http://www.uuchaliceart.com
Unitarian Universalist art.