| 1 |
Paul Hoy schreef: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On Aug 14, 2005, at 5:24 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 15:42:19 -0400, Paul Hoy wrote: |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>>> I really like Gentoo and I like that fact that it does a pretty good |
| 9 |
>>> job at supporting Gnome, however, it's still behind other releases, |
| 10 |
>>> such as Fedora, in terms of when it releases updates, etc. |
| 11 |
>>> |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> Gentoo has rolling updates, so it is always up to date. If you want to |
| 14 |
>> run the latest of everything you will need to run a ~arch system. There |
| 15 |
>> are no releases for Gentoo beyond the installation live CDs. Once |
| 16 |
>> installed, provided you keep up to date, there is no difference between a |
| 17 |
>> system installed three years ago and one installed yesterday. |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
>> -- |
| 21 |
>> Neil Bothwick |
| 22 |
>> |
| 23 |
>> Windows Error #09: Game Over. Exiting Windows. |
| 24 |
>> |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Hi Neil, |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> ~arch is a little scary for me, since it's not in the stable branch. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> Paul |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Well, that's understandable, if that's the way you are, but "you" |
| 33 |
(generic) can't have it both ways. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
If you want the latest upstream release of whatever, it's not |
| 36 |
necessarily going to be stable... all newly-released software is subject |
| 37 |
to bugs that only come out with use of the kind that only freaky ol' |
| 38 |
users can conceive. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
No distribution marks anything stable until it's old enough to have been |
| 41 |
worked to death to get the bugs out. Which is fine. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
Nobody's making anybody use ~, and if you (generic) value stability, |
| 44 |
you're already used to waiting. It's true that there is a backlog of |
| 45 |
submitted ebuilds on b.g.o... some of them are perfectly stable (but |
| 46 |
just aren't in actual Portage yet), some need some help before they'll |
| 47 |
work properly (because the ebuild writer made some mistakes along the |
| 48 |
way). I've been following the taskjuggler b.g.o ebuild for a couple of |
| 49 |
months, and that just made it into Portage yesterday. But I've had |
| 50 |
taskjuggler for a couple of months (had to hack the ebuild to get it to |
| 51 |
compile). I'm looking forward to upgrading to the new ebuild to see if |
| 52 |
all of the kinks have been ironed out. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
Almost all Linux software is a constantly-evolving WIP, and conforming a |
| 55 |
WIP to a distribution which itself is a WIP is a big job. The only way |
| 56 |
it can "succeed" in terms of being considered temporarily stable is to |
| 57 |
freeze things at some point. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
RedHat (Fedora) and other binary distros do this themselves (you won't |
| 60 |
get thus-and-so version of X application until they've worked out the |
| 61 |
kinks between the app and the distro). Gentoo relies on you to do this |
| 62 |
for yourself. Mask all of unstable if that's how you want it (and wait |
| 63 |
for it to propagate down). Or unmask specific programs that you're |
| 64 |
willing to deal with some possible instability in order to 'keep up with |
| 65 |
the Joneses'. Or just live wild and run completely unstable (which |
| 66 |
usually works, but can go horribly, horribly wrong on occasion-- I still |
| 67 |
haven't gotten over the PAM debacle that ate my previous Gentoo install). |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
It's up to you. It always is, with Gentoo... which is why I love it. |
| 70 |
|
| 71 |
But I don't so much see what there is to debate about-- your system is |
| 72 |
*yours*; run it the way you want. |
| 73 |
|
| 74 |
Holly |
| 75 |
-- |
| 76 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives