Debian dated? [was: Re: Announcement from www.kubuntu.de]

[Daniel Carrera]

Michael M. wrote:
> I don't understand where the perception that Debian is dated comes from, 
> unless you're referring exclusively to the stable branch.

Yes, I'm talking about the stable branch. Ubuntu's stable branch has 
current software. Debian's stable branch is dated.

>  That becomes 
> dated because it doesn't change and nothing gets added except security 
> updates.

It becomes dated because it has like a 3-year release cycle.

>  And because Debian has (or has had, anyway) a longish release 
> cycle in comparison with other distros.

3 years is more than "longish".

> But Debian's testing and 
> unstable branches are as up-to-date as any distro,

But they aren't "supported". Ask the Debian guys.

> Isn't an Ubuntu release more-or-less a 
> snapshot of Debian's unstable branch, with Ubuntu-specific 
> customizations and configurations?

And recompiled to use the toolchain that Ubuntu ships with, and tested 
and configured as a unit. It's more than repackaging.

> Each distro has its own strengths and purposes.  I just hear 
> this claim oft-repeated as sort-of received opinion.

Well, I used to be a Debian user, and I couldn't believe how dated it 
was. So I was always using Sid.

> Comparing Debian's stable branch with most other distros isn't really 
> apples-to-apples because stable is geared toward mission-critical uses. 

Comparing any two distros is never "apples-to-apples" then. Each distro 
makes different choices. Debian goes for stability and broad 
architecture support, and the consequence of that is ancient software. 
It's a tradeoff.

Cheers,
Daniel.
-- 
      /\/`) http://opendocumentfellowship.org
     /\/_/
    /\/_/   A life? Sounds great!
    \/_/    Do you know where I could download one?
    /