I missed the beginning here; oh well.
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Aahz firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2009, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Steve Holden writes:
Hey, isn't Ubuntu Debian-based? ...
Ouch. I don't actually use Ubuntu, but when everybody on my local LUG list from the "Linux should be Windows but cheaper" newbies to former NetBSD developers is grouching about upgrade hell, I don't see any real benefits to be gained. You're still going to need to go with a "don't think about fixing what ain't broke, and even if it's just kinda broke, Just Say No to that upgrade dope" policy.
In my experience, Ubuntu tends to stray away from the Way Things Are Traditionally Done, and this can be problematic, sometimes. Because they change things so drastically, they can do some pretty neat stuff, but if I decide I want to tweak something on my own, I usually find that they haven't provided a mechanism for changing something they've already changed (or at least not for a few releases). So, I blunder on ahead and mess with it, and when it comes time to upgrade, their scripts are expecting it to be the way they left it, but obviously it isn't that way, so it breaks horribly.
Of course, if you aren't trying to mess with all manner of weird things (I think my latest trouble came from messing with pam and shared memory to get my audio software to run smoothly), it should be perfectly stable and upgradable.