Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD
(Post 5395750)
Because in many cases a kernel upgrade is not sufficient, you may also have to upgrade parts of the system and many people are not comfortable to upgrade only parts of the system, especially if it is an essential part, like Mesa.
|
If you aren't upgrading, patching, updating your Slackware system between stable releases, you are doing it wrong. Slackware is not a
hold-your-hand distribution and requires its user base to have the skill set to do administrative work on their systems. This includes recompiling parts of your system for desirable upgrades
such as Mesa if necessary. After having spent a great deal of time using Slackware over the last few months, this is what I've come to recognize as the Slackware way.
Someone please correct me if I am wrong.
Quote:
I don't know which experiences you have made, but for me this was and is not true with Debian Sid, Gentoo and Arch.
|
You are blurring what I wrote. I never mentioned having experience with rolling release distros. I was also talking about how Slackware is developed and how it relates to stability. I wasn't starting a debate about which distribution is better due to its rapid release cycle.
My point was clearly stated. You are talking about apples. I am talking about oranges. I will humor you by responding and take the bait. At least in part.
I think you are a bit confused about what Debian Sid is... I don't know where you got the idea that Debian Sid is a rolling release distribution. Debian Sid is the
development branch of Debian,
big difference. Comparing Debian Sid to a rolling release distribution is the equivalent to calling Slackware-current a rolling release distribution. Debian Sid was never designed to be ran as a production system, or even as a main system at home. Sid is the code name for
Debian Unstable for a reason. I think people overlook this simple fact quite a bit.
I ran Debian for about 10 years starting in 2004. Debian Sid is fickle if you do not pay attention to the forecast of the repositories and watch the development mailing lists. If you aren't running into bugs or breakage you aren't using Debian Sid correctly (i.e. not updating until a week after a major update). The whole point of running Debian Sid is to
find breakage and
report it. If you run Debian Sid by hanging back and waiting for stability, you probably should be running Debian Testing, and have no business running Sid.
Furthermore, a Debian system that is a mix between Stable/Testing, Stable/Unstable, Testing/Unstable, or Stable/Testing/Unstable is considered broken in the eyes of the Debian development team. Debian was not designed as a mixed system. Each branch is designed as a software set of specific dependencies that work together. Running a mixed system will guarantee instability and almost always calls for a full system re-installation after some time. In this, I am speaking from experience.
Finally, Slackware isn't quite as dependent on such a model. It is possible to upgrade, say Mesa / related dependencies of Mesa, and have what is still considered to be a stable Slackware system. I am sure there are other examples that would back up my point. However, I am not motivated enough to expand my point any further since my point will most likely be missed in the end anyway. Again,
apples and oranges.