On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 5:46 AM, <teddi...@tmo.blackberry.net> wrote:
> The problem with Ubuntu is it's the half-baked answer to a question that > nobody was > asking in the first place... Given its success, it must be fulfilling a need/demand! > So they come up with the system of releasing LTS's about every two years, and > then > leaving them to security updates, (sound familiar anyone?) They're just imitating RHEL (without back-porting security patches and making a mess of the version numbering) because that's what corporate environments have now come to expect. > And then they will release a derivative of Debian Testing as Stable every six > months, > but being so overly concerned with release dates and sticking to the "release > date" > they release the OS buggy and half-baked, but it's not Debian Testing, no > it's Stable, > cuz we say it is... Right? It's not quite that simple. Non-LTS releases have some packages from unstable. The kernel tracks upstream. And I'm not sure that they label any of their releases "stable." I think of Ubuntu as, more or less, Debian's Fedora... > The fact is any N00b would be better starting off with Mint, it's stable, > quick with media > centric desktop users needs, and the user would be learning linux the RIGHT > way, not > the we're gonna change this or that from the method every linux os uses, to > our own > special way because we're Ubuntu and we know what's best for you. ?! Until December whe the first Linux Mint Debian was released, Mint only offered re-badged and re-looked Ubuntu with a few mint-* apps! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/AANLkTi=chqmzzh5ozfvzghkcurkqbvgwj+jotfvmy...@mail.gmail.com
