I was thinking to switch to debian... what are its bad sides ?
thanks!
PS: i`m not trying to start a flame... I just want to know why some ppl are running from it. and preffer more comercial versions of linux like rh mandrake... etc

Well, for starters, it's a !&^#% to install, unless you're religiously intimate with your hardware. If you are, however, you shouldn't have any problems =)

i`ve read on the site about the packs it comes with... it has gcc 2.95? and kde 2.2 ???

That is my biggest complaint, but for me that is not really an issue, I don't need the most updated software. If you go with the stable version, alot of the software for that package is a bit outdated. Try installing the the testing version (sarge) and the software will be more updated. Otherwise, the packages that are important to you, you can always find and install from source somewhere on the internet. There is also apt-get.org which has the .deb files that you may have better luck finding updated version of software.

it has 7 cds ??? wow!!! 3.0r2 == woody ? who's its security ?
and more... how's it's compatibility with rh ? (i mean the tree structure and so, will i be able to install rpm's that are explicitly created for rh ?)

yes 3.0r2 is woody. And you may not need all seven CDs, I read on here somewhere that the more popular software is on the first CDs. I burned the first to install the basics. After that, apt-get (the package manager) will find your packages online at the sites you specify during install.

I don't want to say much about the trees, it's been to long for me to remember the differences, but they are mostly the same. If you do go with woody, then the regular install goes with kernel 2.2. I believe that if you type in bf2.4, it'll install kernel 2.4, but read the initial screen to be sure. I also think that you can install a package that allows you to install rpms. Apt-get has been much better for me.

Sorta curious what a Debian post is doing in the newbie forum. Sorta expected more advanced users for deb. Enough for that.

Default install is 2.2. You do have to specify bf2.4 install 2.4 (not really obvious, I know). In general, even with the 2.4 install, your packages will be a bit outdated. Debian is very slow to change, so don't expect bleeding edge stuff. If you want more recent stuff, try Fedora or just about any other distribution. The Debian Project is meant to be a STABLE community driven Linux distro. Stable in terms of --- this the the distro my granny grew up on (joke). Forget a GUI install, text only.

Even so, you can still uninstall whatever comes as default and put whatever you want. The new stuff won't be their by default -- that's all. Apt-get rocks, they should have put this on RedHat a long time ago (now many people use it instead of up2date).

You'll probably notice that Debian tends to be not-so-friendly with new hardware -- like my 3-year-old Linksys (v5) network card (not sure I have an ISA NIC anymore).

As you can see, I am surprised to see a newbie post here. If you are new to Linux, Debian maybe a bit too hardcore -- or just hard.

I had to check out this thread because there are no bad sides to Debian.
It is not as newbie friendly as Mandrake, Suse, Red Hat....but it is not on your store shelf and generally anyone that tries it is probably aware of this.
The package manager (apt) is great for both security updates and software installation.
There is a large base of packaged software available. This means preconfigured ready to install.
There a multiple versions to fit any taste. Stable, testing, unstable. You can fly by the seat of your pants or bask in the monotony of stability.
Many people move to the testing version before it finally replaces the stable version.
You will want to consult this before, during and after your install.
All the CDs can be picked up for a very low price from various vendors if you do not feel like downloading and burning your own.
Be sure to experiment with any new distro rather than switching to alleviate your stress.
Good Luck.

i believe its now using anaconda? so, install should be easier?
i wasnt able to install it the first time i switched from win32.
once you know how to use that cfdisk partitioning tool during install, it's got to be the easiest install. it should take only a few minutes really, to have a 2.4 up and running. using just the 1st cd of woody, and not selecting ANY packages from dselect. once you reboot, edit sources.list, and apt-get sarge/sid.