On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Joe <j...@jretrading.com> wrote: 'Stability' and 'getting new software frequently' are incompatible. > Debian has three distributions running. The only one advertised and > called just 'Debian' is the Stable version. It receives quick fixes for > security bugs, but on the whole, no new software. The software version > which exists when it is released (roughly every two years) is the one > it keeps until the distribution is no longer supported. Stable is used > mostly for servers, which need exactly this behaviour, but it's also > the most suitable for new users, as like server administrators, they > don't like surprises. > > Debian Testing is the testbed for Stable, and is probably roughly equal > to Fedora and openSUSE in this respect. It is frozen, probably six to > twelve months before a new Stable release, and after that does not > change dramatically, though software versions may be upgraded. It mostly > works almost fully, and is a good choice for a desktop once you are > able to use the upgrade system easily and can therefore fix simple > problems. The current Testing is not yet frozen. > > Debian Unstable is the testbed for Testing, where new software is first > integrated into a Debian system, and hence is likely to cause trouble > for users fairly often. It will have the latest software, but at any > time there are often things which don't work, or work badly. They are > generally repaired quickly, within a day or two, but Unstable is only > recommended for people with the experience to fix things, and with > at least one more Internet-connected computer. >
Okay, what I meant is that Debain is for Testing for the self stability only (not commercialized like Fedora for RHEL...). Of course, it should be the testbed for Testing before integrating into the stable version, but that it does (...I am sure) for only the free use of operating system, worldwide, of course. Unstable is good only for tech-wizards, but for me, who are new in Linux and who really get less time to work on it, I guess, instability matters a lot, since as you (also) say that new users don't expect surprises out of the box but only a rock solid system with no viruses attacking the machine and for that Debain definitely provides the solution, as all (and you) say. > There are also many systems based on Debian, which usually aim to make > some aspects easier for beginners. The best-known one today is Ubuntu, > which is almost a dirty word here, because some of its publisher's > policies are apparently aimed at improving popularity at the expense of > flexibility and power, and possibly stability. > For Ubuntu, I guess only LTS version (I read on the website) provide this. All others are for again tech-wizards (according to me). Ubuntu does, however, install easily on new hardware, and sometimes > Debian Stable has problems there. I didn't know this and that's why asked. Thanks for this information. However, my hardware is not that old but is not shining too. I guess (not sure) Debian could work....Ubuntu LTS works (live CD). > Knoppix is generally felt to be best > of all in this respect, but Knoppix really is just a live-CD > distribution, and is not suitable for installation as it cannot be > upgraded. If it cannot be upgraded, it would be stable version with no possible changes (for what I know, may be I am wrong). > It is extremely useful for finding out what software is > necessary for difficult hardware, and Debian users usually keep it > available for this reason. Both Knoppix and Ubuntu are real Debian > underneath, using the same software installation system, and mostly the > same system file locations, but they draw heavily on Sid rather than > the more stable variants, so they can be a bit unreliable. But for what I heard, Debian is a rock solid distribution (like openSUSE), so it must be very good, excellent. If some hardware issues come with Debian (as you say), are these with only the old PCs or with newer ones also? However, I have a PC which is neither old nor new. Thx.
