Godric wrote: > > This IMHO is problem of marketing Debs - of people like us who support > Debs making the public aware of just how good Debs is and how easy to > upgrade.
The point is that people do realise that it is easy, but they're still not ready to give up their redhat et al because a CD is _more convenient_. apt-get is easy, apt-get is powerful, but apt-get is not convenient for the majority of people. > > Then there is the situation where you want a certain program, but the > > program developer provides only debian packages linked against potato > > libraries. What if this program is needed for the system to "do what is > > required"? I encountered this situation myself, but since I didn't want > > to subject myself to a lengthy upgrade process, I didn't bother with the > > program. You might ask "So why didn't the developer compile Slink deb's > > as well?". Good question. I suspect that developers like to have the > > latest libraries etc as well, which explains why this particular one was > > using potato. > > I agree - but surely the best solution is for more people to become > Debian developers and help the effort? And if not developers, then help > in some other way - donations, for example. Other distributions can > afford full-time staff to work on stuff. I'm not sure what point you're making here. To me it seems strange that I have to run unstable if I want to run new programs. The current release is what should be the main target for programmers. (Note that I'm not talking about the debian developers who must upload packages to unstable).
