How would I get debian unstable?

[annne annnie]

I'd like to use debian unstable, but I do not know how to get it.  If someone could direct me to a site that has the steps set out or type the steps or something it would be much appreciated.  I have the image for debian testing from about a month or two ago (it's lenny), can I use testing to get to unstable? 

Also, why did you people choose to use debian?  Is it just better than other distributions?  It seems like you people are elite linux users, and I just wanted to the differences between debian and some other distributions.  I haven't tried many, but to me they would all seem the same (I'm new).

---

Sent from Yahoo! Mail.
A Smarter Email.

[Christopher Browne-3]

On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 10:26 PM, annne annnie <goturtwig@...> wrote:
> I'd like to use debian unstable, but I do not know how to get it.  If
> someone could direct me to a site that has the steps set out or type the
> steps or something it would be much appreciated.  I have the image for
> debian testing from about a month or two ago (it's lenny), can I use testing
> to get to unstable?

You surely can; essentially, you install [some version] of Debian,
then edit /etc/apt/sources.list to change various references to (say)
"testing" to indicate "unstable".  Or change "stable" to "unstable."

Then, run "apt-get update" to get the unstable list of packages, then
"apt-get dist-upgrade" to shift to "unstable."

> Also, why did you people choose to use debian?  Is it just better than other
> distributions?  It seems like you people are elite linux users, and I just
> wanted to the differences between debian and some other distributions.  I
> haven't tried many, but to me they would all seem the same (I'm new).

The crucial differences between Debian and other distributions are two-fold:

1.  It has a public, democratic governance system, whereas other
distributions tend to be under the control of some non-public
organization.

To some extent, the various Red Hat derivatives are controlled by Red
Hat Software, irrespective of public participation.  Likewise for
Ubuntu and Canonical.

Various Linux distributions have gone away due to changes in direction
of the "owners" (Caldera being a most obvious example); there is
little risk of that taking place with Debian due to its governance
model.

2.  As a result of the wide-spread participation, there needs to be a
great deal of policy, which indeed extends to tooling for managing all
sorts of aspects of software packaging and the interaction of packages
with one another and with the distribution.

Traditionally, the "engineering" of Red Hat-sourced distributions took
place entirely internally to Red Hat Software, and packaging was a
"pre-cooked" thing where you could only be fairly certain that things
would work if the packages had RHAT people working on them.  The RPM
tool could build packages and manage a local installation repository;
in contrast, Debian has long had a VASTLY more extensive set of
package tooling addressing *way* more high level issues, and helping
to enable a much more diverse set of contributors to contribute
well-integrated packages.

The consistency of having the huge set of diverse, yet well-integrated
packages is what has enabled the creation of "private labelled" things
like Ubuntu and Knoppix that derive the huge set of software by virtue
of harnessing Debian's work at relatively little cost.
--
http://linuxfinances.info/info/linuxdistributions.html
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and
expecting different results." -- assortedly attributed to Albert
Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, Rita Mae Brown, and Rudyard Kipling


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[C Wakefield-2]

On June 4, 2008 09:53:33 pm Christopher Browne wrote:

> The crucial differences between Debian and other distributions are
> two-fold:
>
> 1.  It has a public, democratic governance system, whereas other
> distributions tend to be under the control of some non-public
> organization.
>
> To some extent, the various Red Hat derivatives are controlled by Red
> Hat Software, irrespective of public participation.  Likewise for
> Ubuntu and Canonical.
>
> Various Linux distributions have gone away due to changes in direction
> of the "owners" (Caldera being a most obvious example); there is
> little risk of that taking place with Debian due to its governance
> model.
>
> 2.  As a result of the wide-spread participation, there needs to be a
> great deal of policy, which indeed extends to tooling for managing all
> sorts of aspects of software packaging and the interaction of packages
> with one another and with the distribution.
>
> Traditionally, the "engineering" of Red Hat-sourced distributions took
> place entirely internally to Red Hat Software, and packaging was a
> "pre-cooked" thing where you could only be fairly certain that things
> would work if the packages had RHAT people working on them.  The RPM
> tool could build packages and manage a local installation repository;
> in contrast, Debian has long had a VASTLY more extensive set of
> package tooling addressing *way* more high level issues, and helping
> to enable a much more diverse set of contributors to contribute
> well-integrated packages.
>
> The consistency of having the huge set of diverse, yet well-integrated
> packages is what has enabled the creation of "private labelled" things
> like Ubuntu and Knoppix that derive the huge set of software by virtue
> of harnessing Debian's work at relatively little cost.

Well said, Christopher!

Chris W.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Gilles Sadowski]

See also:

  http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/talks/why_debian/talk.html


Best,
Gilles


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Jochen Schulz-2]

annne annnie:
>
> I'd like to use debian unstable, but I do not know how to get it.

Generic answer: if you don't know how to get it then you should think
twice before using it. ;-) To be honest, I am running stable only on
servers (and my girlfriend's laptop), all of my workstations run
unstable as well.

But although severe problems are very rare, unstable is only a good
choice for you if you either know the distribution quite well already or
if you are willing to learn it. Casual users without any interest in
playing with the system itself are better off running stable (or any
other distribution with shorter release cycles if you need software not
yet available from stable or backports.org).

For a start, I'd recommend to start with stable and try it for a few
months. If you know aptitude and a little bash (not necessarily
programming, only console usage) you can then go ahead and try to
dist-upgrade.

> If someone could direct me to a site that has the steps set out or
> type the steps or something it would be much appreciated.  I have the
> image for debian testing from about a month or two ago (it's lenny),
> can I use testing to get to unstable?  

Yes, that's exactly the way to go. There are no installers for unstable.
(You can edit your sources.list to point to unstable during
installation, but I don't know how well that works.)

> Also, why did you people choose to use debian?  Is it just better than
> other distributions?

I don't know, I have never used anything else (besides short adventures
with Gentoo and Ubuntu and a few more live CDs).

> It seems like you people are elite linux users,

This is a common conception but I don't think this is true anymore (or
if it ever was). Debian has improved a lot on usability, it's just that
other distributions focus even more on polishing the "user experience"
for a regular desktop user.

In a way, Debian offers more choices and doesn't force anything on you
which you don't strictly need. On the other hand this means you have to
make more choices yourself which is hard if you don't understand your
options in the first place.

> and I just wanted to the differences between debian and some other
> distributions.  I haven't tried many, but to me they would all seem
> the same (I'm new).

The main difference between distributions is still about package
management. There are RPM and DEB based distributions, there are
source-based distributions. Then there's the choice of a default desktop
environment (Gnome, KDE, Xfce) but this already a very blurry line
because most distributions contain all of them.

In my opinion, if you are searching for a versatile system which you can
use for very different purposes (workstation, home server, learning
system), Debian is a very good choice. If you only want to use a system
that's free (in whatever sense you choose) and simply works without you
having to learn very much about it, I'd recommend Ubuntu.

J.
--
I wish I had been aware enough to enjoy my time as a toddler.
[Agree]   [Disagree]
                 <http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html>

[Cyril Jaquier-2]

>> Also, why did you people choose to use debian?  Is it just better than
>> other distributions?
>
> I don't know, I have never used anything else (besides short adventures
> with Gentoo and Ubuntu and a few more live CDs).
>

I switched from Gentoo to Debian on my laptop 6 months ago. I used
Gentoo (and I'm still using it on servers) for many years. I learned a
lot about GNU/Linux this way. I liked to test the latest software
releases, choose the dependencies in really need, test some unusual
compilation flags, etc.

Now that I'm a bit older, I don't want to spend so much time in setting
up my system. I want something that works (quite) out of the box.
Moreover, compiling every single piece of software is a time-consuming
task. So I wanted to try something else. One of my friend is a Debian
maintainer and it convinced me to give it a try.

I'm quite happy with my Debian unstable. I have a 6 months old laptop so
I had few problems at the beginning with bad hardware support. But now,
everything is working as I want to. I regret that some software takes a
long time to come into unstable/experimental (e.g. Gnome development
release). And I find that it is easier to create Gentoo's ebuilds than
Debian's packages. But I still have to learn a lot about Debian.

I'm using Ubuntu at work and on my girlfriend's laptop. This is probably
one of the best desktop distribution I think. And I don't see so much
differences compared to Debian. The only reason for me not to use Ubuntu
is, as you said,

>> It seems like you people are elite linux users,

I don't want to use the same distribution as my girlfriend or a
distribution that my mother could install herself :D

I still haven't found a distribution that makes me 100% happy. But I'm
really happy with Debian at the moment.

> In a way, Debian offers more choices and doesn't force anything on you
> which you don't strictly need. On the other hand this means you have to
> make more choices yourself which is hard if you don't understand your
> options in the first place.
>

Gentoo offers even more choices. So if you have time and want to learn
more about a GNU/Linux system, give Gentoo a try. Moreover, the forums
and the documentation are awesome.

Regards,

Cyril Jaquier


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Jochen Schulz-2]

Cyril Jaquier:
>
>>> It seems like you people are elite linux users,
>
> I don't want to use the same distribution as my girlfriend or a  
> distribution that my mother could install herself :D

Don't you know that Debian can be installed by a chicken? It simply has
to pick on enter a few times. ;-)

> Gentoo offers even more choices. So if you have time and want to learn  
> more about a GNU/Linux system, give Gentoo a try. Moreover, the forums  
> and the documentation are awesome.

That's another difference between distributions: what kind of support
channels they offer. I hate web forums with a passion and cannot imagine
using a distribution where I had to resort using them to get in contact
with other users.

J.
--
I wish I looked more like a successful person even though I'm a loser.
[Agree]   [Disagree]
                 <http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html>

[A J Stiles]

On Thursday 05 Jun 2008, annne annnie wrote:
> I'd like to use debian unstable, but I do not know how to get it.  If
> someone could direct me to a site that has the steps set out or type the
> steps or something it would be much appreciated.  I have the image for
> debian testing from about a month or two ago (it's lenny), can I use
> testing to get to unstable?

Yes, just edit
/etc/apt/sources.list
and change every occurrence of "stable", "etch", "testing" or "lenny"
to "sid".  Then
# apt-get update && apt-get upgrade
and you should be good to go.

> Also, why did you people choose to use debian?  Is it just better than
> other distributions?  It seems like you people are elite linux users, and I
> just wanted to the differences between debian and some other distributions.
>  I haven't tried many, but to me they would all seem the same (I'm new).

For me, Debian is all about purity (only Free software is installed by
default)  but also about not getting in the way of the user.  Debian doesn't
insist for you to use some fancy graphical configuration tools; you can just
edit configuration files by hand without fear of breaking anything or having
them overwritten by some magical master configurator.  And you can choose
whether you want to install pre-compiled packages or compile from Source.  
Almost every piece of Free software ever written is available in the
repositories anyway, ready to use; but if you happen to have some special
requirement, you can easily build your own hacked-up version  (for instance,
I have a specially-modified copy of Gramofile -- a vinyl LP ripping
program -- that is tied to the USB audio input).

Debian isn't the easiest distribution in the world, or it certainly wasn't
when I started out on it.  Try as I might, I couldn't quite get to grips with
it and so went over to Mandriva  (or Mandrake, as it was called then).  That
was fine for awhile, but I eventually outgrew it:  their package repository
was limited and I ended up learning to compile things from Source Code.  And
by the time you're doing that  (and you have learned the hard way
about -devel packages, or -dev packages as Debian calls them)  then it no
longer matters which distro you're running anymore.  

This, of course, was a long time before there was such a thing as Ubuntu.  For
the most part, Ubuntu *is* Debian, just customised.  Bits have been sawn off
and bits have been welded on, but the engine and chassis are recognisably
Debian.  Ubuntu is what I would recommend to anyone seeking to try Linux out;
just because I know that if it fouls up, it's familiar enough for me to be
able to fix it -- all the configs and logs are exactly where I have come to
expect them to be.


The other distributions with a reputation for being "hard"  (because they
involve understanding, if not how things work under the bonnet then that
there *is* a bonnet with moving parts under it, and sometimes doing things by
hand without the benefit of slick graphical "wizards" to allow you to select
one of a number of pre-set configurations; some people seem conditioned to
think that there is something intrinsically hard about reading text and
typing on a keyboard)  are Gentoo and Slackware.

Slackware is very "old-skool"  (though it has up-to-date packages),  and tends
to stay even further out of your way than Debian does.  This extends to not
having a package management and dependency resolution system of its own.  I
tried it, and it didn't really seem to offer anything that Debian didn't.

Gentoo is famous for tweakability.  Instead of pre-compiled packages, Gentoo
packages contain Source Code and automated build instructions; they are
compiled right on your machine to suit your machine, according to various
optimisation flags specified by you.  Again, I tried it; and it also didn't
seem to offer anything special over Debian apart from the fact of there being
no more need for -dev packages.  It was a good learning experience, though:  
I'd seriously advise anyone who is thinking of creating their own GNU/Linux
distribution to do an install of Gentoo from Stage One, even if you don't
plan to base your distro from Gentoo.

In all fairness to Slackware and Gentoo, I am quite sure that had I been using
either of these first and dallied with Debian, I would have gone back to what
I knew.  And if Ubuntu had been around when I lost patience with Debian, then
that's what I would have tried next.  If I'd tried Ubuntu sooner, I'm not
even sure I'd ever have reverted to Debian; except maybe for GUI-free
servers.

BTW.  If you want to see real elitism, try hanging around with a bunch of SuSE
users -- they are all boss-eyed from looking down their noses at everyone
else!  ;)

--
AJS
delta echo bravo six four at earthshod dot co dot uk


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Sythos]

Scrive A J Stiles <deb64@...>:

> Yes, just edit
> /etc/apt/sources.list
> and change every occurrence of "stable", "etch", "testing" or "lenny"
> to "sid".  Then
> # apt-get update && apt-get upgrade
> and you should be good to go.

Brrrrr!

better "apt-get dist-upgrade" to handle in a better way packages replacing
and new dependencies. More better is "aptitude"...

only "apt-get upgrade" may cause a lot of locked packages not upgrade
automagically and the system became too much hybrid...


--
Sythos - http://www.sythos.net
  ()  ASCII Ribbon Campaign - against html/rtf/vCard in mail
  /\                        - against M$ attachments


----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[annne annnie]

Hi, I'm the one who asked about getting unstable and the different distributions compared to debian.  I have a few more questions, sorry.  First question:  How would I reply correctly so that my reply is still in the same topic? 
Someone mentioned something about apt-get upgrade causing locked packages that won't get upgraded or something...  thats the kind of stuff I want to learn.  How would I learn about how debian works and how to configure it all?  All I have been doing so far is just googling the problems I have run into, but I'm not really learning anything. 
Also, when you guys say SUSe do you mean openSuSE?  Because I would like to try it out, but the only one I could find out how to download was openSuSE.
Last question(s), is there a unix one I could get for free?  Are they similar to linux?  What are the differences?

Sythos <sythos@...> wrote:

Scrive A J Stiles :

> Yes, just edit
> /etc/apt/sources.list
> and change every occurrence of "stable", "etch", "testing" or "lenny"
> to "sid". Then
> # apt-get update && apt-get upgrade
> and you should be good to go.

Brrrrr!

better "apt-get dist-upgrade" to handle in a better way packages replacing
and new dependencies. More better is "aptitude"...

only "apt-get upgrade" may cause a lot of locked packages not upgrade
automagically and the system became too much hybrid...


--
Sythos - http://www.sythos.net
() ASCII Ribbon Campaign - against html/rtf/vCard in mail
/\ - against M$ attachments


----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

---

Sent from Yahoo! Mail.
A Smarter Email.

[Sythos]

Scrive annne annnie <goturtwig@...>:

> Hi, I'm the one who asked about getting unstable and the different
> distributions compared to debian.  I have a few more questions, sorry.
> First question:  How would I reply correctly so that my reply is still
> in the same topic?
> Someone mentioned something about apt-get upgrade causing locked
> packages that won't get upgraded or something...  thats the kind of
> stuff I want to learn.  How would I learn about how debian works and
> how to configure it all?  All I have been doing so far is just googling
> the problems I have run into, but I'm not really learning anything.
> Also, when you guys say SUSe do you mean openSuSE?  Because I would
> like to try it out, but the only one I could find out how to download
> was openSuSE.
> Last question(s), is there a unix one I could get for free?  Are they
> similar to linux?  What are the differences?
>

1st answer: use "reply to all" :)

2nd answer: every packages have doc&man

3rd answer: I suppose yes...

4th answer: how kind of "unix" do you mean?

--
Sythos - http://www.sythos.net
  ()  ASCII Ribbon Campaign - against html/rtf/vCard in mail
  /\                        - against M$ attachments


----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Pere Nubiola Radigales]

2008/6/5 Sythos <sythos@...>:

> Scrive annne annnie <goturtwig@...>:
>
>> Hi, I'm the one who asked about getting unstable and the different
>> distributions compared to debian.  I have a few more questions, sorry.
>> First question:  How would I reply correctly so that my reply is still
>> in the same topic?
>> Someone mentioned something about apt-get upgrade causing locked
>> packages that won't get upgraded or something...  thats the kind of
>> stuff I want to learn.  How would I learn about how debian works and
>> how to configure it all?  All I have been doing so far is just googling
>> the problems I have run into, but I'm not really learning anything.
>> Also, when you guys say SUSe do you mean openSuSE?  Because I would
>> like to try it out, but the only one I could find out how to download
>> was openSuSE.
>> Last question(s), is there a unix one I could get for free?  Are they
>> similar to linux?  What are the differences?
>>
>
> 1st answer: use "reply to all" :)

use reply to debian-amd64@...

>
> 2nd answer: every packages have doc&man
>
> 3rd answer: I suppose yes...
>
> 4th answer: how kind of "unix" do you mean?
>
> --
> Sythos - http://www.sythos.net
>  ()  ASCII Ribbon Campaign - against html/rtf/vCard in mail
>  /\                        - against M$ attachments
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-REQUEST@...
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...
>
>

--
Pere Nubiola Radigales
Telf: [phone]
e-mail: pere.nubiola@...
 pnubiola@...


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Lennart Sorensen]

On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 01:34:24PM +0100, A J Stiles wrote:

> For me, Debian is all about purity (only Free software is installed by
> default)  but also about not getting in the way of the user.  Debian doesn't
> insist for you to use some fancy graphical configuration tools; you can just
> edit configuration files by hand without fear of breaking anything or having
> them overwritten by some magical master configurator.  And you can choose
> whether you want to install pre-compiled packages or compile from Source.  
> Almost every piece of Free software ever written is available in the
> repositories anyway, ready to use; but if you happen to have some special
> requirement, you can easily build your own hacked-up version  (for instance,
> I have a specially-modified copy of Gramofile -- a vinyl LP ripping
> program -- that is tied to the USB audio input).
>
> Debian isn't the easiest distribution in the world, or it certainly wasn't
> when I started out on it.  Try as I might, I couldn't quite get to grips with
> it and so went over to Mandriva  (or Mandrake, as it was called then).  That
> was fine for awhile, but I eventually outgrew it:  their package repository
> was limited and I ended up learning to compile things from Source Code.  And
> by the time you're doing that  (and you have learned the hard way
> about -devel packages, or -dev packages as Debian calls them)  then it no
> longer matters which distro you're running anymore.  
>
> This, of course, was a long time before there was such a thing as Ubuntu.  For
> the most part, Ubuntu *is* Debian, just customised.  Bits have been sawn off
> and bits have been welded on, but the engine and chassis are recognisably
> Debian.  Ubuntu is what I would recommend to anyone seeking to try Linux out;
> just because I know that if it fouls up, it's familiar enough for me to be
> able to fix it -- all the configs and logs are exactly where I have come to
> expect them to be.

Debian stable releases seem to upgrade better to the next release than
Ubuntu.  I think Ubuntu should really put some more effort into making
sure upgrades work flawlessly.  I think fixed release dates is a huge
mistake on the part of Ubuntu, but rather typical of anything with
commercial backing.

> The other distributions with a reputation for being "hard"  (because they
> involve understanding, if not how things work under the bonnet then that
> there *is* a bonnet with moving parts under it, and sometimes doing things by
> hand without the benefit of slick graphical "wizards" to allow you to select
> one of a number of pre-set configurations; some people seem conditioned to
> think that there is something intrinsically hard about reading text and
> typing on a keyboard)  are Gentoo and Slackware.

I think many people don't realize that installing a system is hard.  I
think most computer users would have difficulty installing windows if
their system hadn't come with it pre installed.

> Slackware is very "old-skool"  (though it has up-to-date packages),  and tends
> to stay even further out of your way than Debian does.  This extends to not
> having a package management and dependency resolution system of its own.  I
> tried it, and it didn't really seem to offer anything that Debian didn't.
>
> Gentoo is famous for tweakability.  Instead of pre-compiled packages, Gentoo
> packages contain Source Code and automated build instructions; they are
> compiled right on your machine to suit your machine, according to various
> optimisation flags specified by you.  Again, I tried it; and it also didn't
> seem to offer anything special over Debian apart from the fact of there being
> no more need for -dev packages.  It was a good learning experience, though:  
> I'd seriously advise anyone who is thinking of creating their own GNU/Linux
> distribution to do an install of Gentoo from Stage One, even if you don't
> plan to base your distro from Gentoo.

If they don't have -dev packages, that means every system is wasting
space on header files that it probably doesn't need.

I have never tried gentoo, since it is fundamentally the wrong way to do
a system.  I have built stuff from source before, and I really don't
have any need to waste cpu cycles on doing what the package maintainer
already did.

> In all fairness to Slackware and Gentoo, I am quite sure that had I been using
> either of these first and dallied with Debian, I would have gone back to what
> I knew.  And if Ubuntu had been around when I lost patience with Debian, then
> that's what I would have tried next.  If I'd tried Ubuntu sooner, I'm not
> even sure I'd ever have reverted to Debian; except maybe for GUI-free
> servers.

I started with SLS, went to slackware, then redhat, and finally Debian.
At no point did I ever want to go back, since each time was a vast
improvement.

> BTW.  If you want to see real elitism, try hanging around with a bunch of SuSE
> users -- they are all boss-eyed from looking down their noses at everyone
> else!  ;)

I installed SuSE once.  That didn't last long (the installer alone
pissed me off).

--
Len Sorensen


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Lennart Sorensen]

On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 02:51:02PM +0100, annne annnie wrote:
> Hi, I'm the one who asked about getting unstable and the different distributions compared to debian.  I have a few more questions, sorry.  First question:  How would I reply correctly so that my reply is still in the same topic?  
> Someone mentioned something about apt-get upgrade causing locked packages that won't get upgraded or something...  thats the kind of stuff I want to learn.  How would I learn about how debian works and how to configure it all?  All I have been doing so far is just googling the problems I have run into, but I'm not really learning anything.  
> Also, when you guys say SUSe do you mean openSuSE?  Because I would like to try it out, but the only one I could find out how to download was openSuSE.
> Last question(s), is there a unix one I could get for free?  Are they similar to linux?  What are the differences?

I have never used apt-get ugrade.  I always use dist-upgrade.  I have no
idea when I would want to use upgrade instead, and I have used debian
for 9 years now.  I think it has no actual purpose really.

--
Len Sorensen


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 03:26:33AM +0100, annne annnie wrote:
>
> I'd like to use debian unstable, but I do not know how to get it.

I guess others have already given you instructions how to get it, and
arguments why you should / should not do so. So I won't repeat them here.

> Also, why did you people choose to use debian?  Is it just better than
> other distributions?  It seems like you people are elite linux users, and I
> just wanted to the differences between debian and some other distributions.
> I haven't tried many, but to me they would all seem the same (I'm new).

Well, it all depends what you want! I am a (semi?) professional sysadmin, and
I appreciate the fact that Debian is extremely stable, and has a strict
policy on what packages should be before they are accepted into the
distribution.  That means that Debian (at least "stable" or "etch") is never
really up to the bleeding edge, which is fine for my servers. Let some other
people worry about getting things just right, and catch the last-minute
errors that always creep in. When things get into Debian/Stable, I know I can
trust them. And I can trust that when the time comes, I can upgrade to the
next stable version, without much hazzle. I have had machines in production
since stable was called potato (2003 or so, I guess), and never had to
reinstall those (except a few that were broken into). I routinely do system
upgrades on other continents (I'm located in Denmark, and I have servers in
the US), and those usually go fine.

As to my workstation(s), I prefer Debian for the simple reason that I know
and trust it so well. I tend to use a hybrid installation of
stable/unstable/sid, to get more recent packages, but I would not recommend
that for people who do not know how to handle the occasional dependenvy
problem...

For what it is worth, I have my old father running Debian/Stable, and see no
reason why I should not keep doing that for many years.


Best regards

   Heikki


--
Heikki Levanto   "In Murphy We Turst"     heikki (at) lsd (dot) dk


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...