• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

which version of Debian

GhettoFob

GhettoFob

Diamond Member
I'd like to try out Debian because of all the good things I've heard about it. I'm currently using Gentoo and I love it, but I don't really like the fact that you have to compile every program you want to install. (I'd rather use the spare cpu cycles for distributed computing. 🙂) Is there a big difference between the different versions of Debian? I'd like to eventually replace my Gentoo system which I use for mainly file storage, bit torrent, irc, web browsing and instant messaging. Also, will Debian have any problems with a 160 gig hard drive or reiserfs partitions? I'd like to try out a version of it in VMWare to get comfortable with it before I switch over. Thanks for any feedback/comments.
 
I think I typically used testing, or whatever the middle option is. Not stable, not "bleeding edge" development, but the middle of the road. It worked out fine for the most part (until I did something to kill it).

If the BIOS can read all 160gB of the drive, then Debian shouldn't have a problem. I'm not sure what kind of support it has for ReiserFS though.
 
Sarge 3.1 is about to be released as the stable version. in the next month or so from what I gather. so that will make the current unstable Sid the new testing ver.

use Sid now , or use testing in a little while which will be the same thing .....
 
Originally posted by: osage
Sarge 3.1 is about to be released as the stable version. in the next month or so from what I gather. so that will make the current unstable Sid the new testing ver.
Click to expand...

No, sid is always unstable. Sarge will become stable, and a new name will be picked for testing.
 
your are right of course, poor choice of words on my part.

what is now the unstable version will in effect become the testing version is what I was trying to say.
 
Also, will Debian have any problems with a 160 gig hard drive or reiserfs partitions?
Click to expand...

Debian stable still uses a 2.2 kernel as the base so only ext2 is supported, there is a 2.4 kernel on the CD so you can get ext3 though. Personally I won't trust any data to reiserfs, it's caused problems for me too many times in the past so I would recommend XFS, you can find an XFS netinstall CD if you google for it.
 
I don't like using testing for day to day work. The reason is that it takes weeks to get bugs fixed. When someone finds a bug in testing, it first has to go into unstable and sit there for a period, then it can go into testing. You also don't get any security fixes in testing without going through that wait. In stable, you get them immediately, and in unstable, while not guaranteed, 90% of the time you get them as fast as in stable.

In 3 years of using unstable, I've never had a problem that couldn't be fixed by reinstalling the previous version until a problem got ironed out. I guess very occasionally there are serious problems, but they never hit me. I've had much less problems with unstable then I have with RH9 and any version of Mandrake I've tried.
 
In 3 years of using unstable, I've never had a problem that couldn't be fixed by reinstalling the previous version until a problem got ironed out.
Click to expand...

Yes, as long as you don't clean put /var/cache/apt/archives too often you'll be fine.
 
I think you should use unstable, which really isn't that unstable. The real issue is what you're using this computer for. I'm guessing it's just for your general use and enjoyment. If so, go with unstable. If you're running a server or something that actually needs to be ultra-reliable, try testing or unstable.

Debian is notorious for being late to include the latest packages in its distro. Unstable is the freshest of the three and it's really not that cutting edge. For example, it took a month to get KDE 3.2 in unstable! They didn't want to let it in because there was too many bugs in it so they waited for 3.2.1!!!! In reality there's the experimental repository which is actually the real "unstable." So don't be afraid by the unstable label and go for it. I've tried all three. I've been using unstable on my latest system for a year. I've had maybe two packages broken due to upgrades under it and they were fixed quite quickly (in a matter of days). All in all, I"ve found it very reliable and highly recommend it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top