4 ms·
That's the tradeoff Debian users consciously make. And it's a good one IMHO. Not sure why you make it sound like a bad thing. For the stuff that you really _ne
by hnfong 3y ago
That's the tradeoff Debian users consciously make. And it's a good one IMHO. Not sure why you make it sound like a bad thing.
For the stuff that you really _need_ to have the latest version, you have options to install it yourself. For the rest of the system, if you don't care about having the latest updates, you get a relatively stable system that doesn't potentially change every other week.
Of course some people do prefer having the whole system on the bleeding edge -- in which case Debian is obviously not for them, and there are many other distributions that cater to their needs. But the people who use Debian made a conscious choice to keep most of the system "stable" except for the important programs that they know well enough to "maintain" the latest versions themselves.
- lmm 3y ago> For the stuff that you really _need_ to have the latest version, you have options to install it yourself. For the rest of the system, if you don't care about having the latest updates, you get a relatively stable system that doesn't potentially change every other week. Those options exist, but Debian doesn't really support or steer people towards them. IMO their approach compares pretty poorly to e.g. FreeBSD where you have an explicit packages/ports split and support for using ports. (E.g. installing a newer version of an application on Debian is relatively easy, but if that application needs a library then it becomes quite hard, to the point that people resort to vendoring or static builds in one form or another)