I was looking at linux distributions. I haven't looked at Debian recently, but I probably will. The weakness with Red Hat in the past has been that they release updates for security/errata which can be applied to you existing release, but actual upgrades had to be done in a huge batch (like from a CD) when the new release came out. If I could upgrade anything and/or everything without doing that, it would make things much easier in the long run. Jeff Vian said: > > > Alexander Dalloz wrote: > >>Am Di, den 04.05.2004 schrieb John Aldrich um 19:59: >> >> >> >>>I think he's probably talking about Debian and related distros where you >>> just >>>do an "apt get" every night and it "automatically" updates everything to >>> the >>>latest version and there's no need to wipe and reinstall the way that >>> it's >>>often easier to do with RedHat / Mandrake / etc style distros. >>> >>> >> >>I fear he could mean that. But that is a wrong impression, by two >>meanings: >> >> > I read his post differently. > I thought he meant a non-linux OS, and his notion there is wrong as well. > > I do not know of ANY os that does not do an upgrade (read new version > release) periodically. Even if you can do the upgrade version of the > new release it does have some limitations, and may not work well without > upgrading the applications. Many applications that worked in 1995 may > not work on an upgraded version in 2003 or later.. And many drivers > that worked for the hardware in 1995 will not work with the new versions > of the OS. Most applications written for todays versions of an OS will > NOT work on an os from 1995 so you are stuck with old versions of the > applications as well.. > > Thus, as you upgrade the OS you are also stuck with upgrading the > applications you use as well, and vice-versa. > > As a result I am not really sure what he is claiming, and I would like > more information about what his thoughts are and what he is comparing > RH/Fedora to. > >>1) Running Debian you have not "most current versions" like Bob claimed >>in his original posting. I am speaking here about the stable release. >>Running "Debian unstable" you are certainly some kind of most current >>but at the price of a bleeding distribution with very often fights >>against the system and to get it proper working. "Debian testing" might >>be taken a good choice by many Debian users, but it is neither stable >>nor does is have security updates. >> >>2) You could upgrade Redhat releases the same way like Debian too. There >>are a lot of people who upgraded from former releases step by step. Of >>course, Debian is an exception because it ships a new stable release >>only once per decade, so upgrading is more rare. But upgrading means for >>all distribution: changes on the base system. Debian is no exception in >>that way. And if you did customize your system in a huge way you will >>face upgrading difficulties with each distribution. >> >>I do not want to bash Debian. But Fedora meanwhile has with up2date and >>yum apt like tools on board too. And apt lovers can get it for the RPM >>system too from external. >> >>Alexander >> >> >> >> > > > -- > fedora-list mailing list > fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list >
