Debian (and by extension, MX) is often called too old. What is your response to this?

Message

#31 Post by **bassplayer69** » Thu Aug 04, 2022 9:59 am

Aronticuz wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 4:49 pm
bassplayer69 wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 2:39 pm Coming from (and still using) Slackware, I've learned to just create my own packages, install, and maintain them. There is plenty of documentation on how to do this, you just need to spend the time learning. So, for all the applications that I want the latest stable version of and they are not found in the repos, I'll just create my own. Its not rocket science.
Any pointers for the keen hearted but unsure of how to proceed?

https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/main ... rt.en.html

#32 Post by **Aronticuz** » Thu Aug 04, 2022 12:15 pm

LU344928 wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 7:34 am Here's a good intro:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anJ1bMSAm8w

Thank you for these pointers

#33 Post by **Mauser** » Thu Aug 04, 2022 4:27 pm

My response to it is they should use Arch if they want the latest bleeding edge software. I find that newer software still fails to address the biggest issue in my experience with Linux is it fails at being able to update devices like head units in automobiles GPS, fails to update Radar detectors, and fails with many other devices requiring updates.

#34 Post by **j2mcgreg** » Thu Aug 04, 2022 7:58 pm

Mauser wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 4:27 pm My response to it is they should use Arch if they want the latest bleeding edge software. I find that newer software still fails to address the biggest issue in my experience with Linux is it fails at being able to update devices like head units in automobiles GPS, fails to update Radar detectors, and fails with many other devices requiring updates.

That's not a failure of Linux. The fault there lies with the device manufacturers who don't or won't create a Linux interface.

#35 Post by **JayM** » Thu Aug 04, 2022 9:12 pm

People who say Debian Stable is "too old" don't seem to understand what the concept of stability means in this context. Of course it won't have the latest, greatest, shiny new bleeding-edge stuff, it has somewhat older, tried and true, known-working versions with most of the bugs already fixed. That's why it's so stable. And of course it's not going to work on hardware that didn't even exist yet when the latest version of Debian was released: Debian developers can't see into the future. And the onus is actually on the hardware makers to provide Debian driver support for their stuff but most don't bother, or if they do they only provide support for Ubuntu (which drivers may or may not work in Debian Stable.)

That's what's so nice about MX-21 AHS and MX-KDE: much better support for very recent hardware vs. regular Debian Stable. Not to mention the fine work by the MX packaging team about making updated versions of software available.

#36 Post by **Mauser** » Thu Aug 04, 2022 9:25 pm

j2mcgreg wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 7:58 pm
Mauser wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 4:27 pm My response to it is they should use Arch if they want the latest bleeding edge software. I find that newer software still fails to address the biggest issue in my experience with Linux is it fails at being able to update devices like head units in automobiles GPS, fails to update Radar detectors, and fails with many other devices requiring updates.
That's not a failure of Linux. The fault there lies with the device manufacturers who don't or won't create a Linux interface.

Pushing the blame game doesn't change the fact that it still doesn't work which is an ongoing issue with Linux. It's because of these excuses that it hasn't been fixed.

#37 Post by **Aronticuz** » Fri Aug 05, 2022 5:36 am

Okay - I'll dive into the discussion too - but first! History? Or is it History! There are good reasons why patterns of short term releases, long term releases and rolling releases seem to have become the norm, well until a new norm happens along. And that is probably: because it caused the least disruption, limited damage and kept costs down. How many Ad*be users turned off auto-updates because an auto-update borked a system in the middle of an important contract?
These are as most can guess stability, costs in sorting out release-change problems, legacy problems, hardware problems (all the printers wouldn't work after the upgrade?) ... in short: how much of a headache will an upgrade cause, how much will it cost.
I think it has too many variables to say: one solution fits all! But Google has gone gLinux on rolling release Debian-Testing for its own reasons. The wise might say "Oh hey - let's keep an eye on that and see how THAT works out!" Whether the rolling release is Arch or Debian based ... well isn't that a different question altogether?
As with all human endeavours anything can be made to work but the bean counters will always invoke cost comparisons in different scenarios.
Linux is too broad to have a simple single way of doing things otherwise Linux would really be Unix and there would only be one operating system in the world?

#38 Post by **oops** » Fri Aug 05, 2022 5:54 am

Too old means often too stable for some people.
When I want something less stable but with new softwares, I use an .appimage, or, a virtual machine, or a dual boot with a rolling distrib.
So no problem.

#39 Post by **linexer2016** » Fri Aug 05, 2022 7:03 am

And again (at risk of being overly repetitive) if one is worried about a rolling release or another update type "borking" one's system then one should a) use MX with its native backup tools and b) use those two primary tools Timeshift and Snapshot/LiveUSB. Then if the aforementioned "borking" occurs, just restore easily enough. I have found in all my years of using Linux that whilst some other distros do now have effective backup tools, none IMO, are as easy to implement and manage as those provided in MX. Windows System Restore was IMO, never as easy and uncomplicated as these Linux (MX) tools.

#40 Post by **Aronticuz** » Sat Aug 06, 2022 2:44 am

Arnox wrote: Thu Dec 16, 2021 2:34 am ...
What would be your guys' answer to these issues though? Or seeming issues.

Interesting topic - with some strong responses so I suppose there are emotional depth of feelings on these topics.

After a bit of reflection on the original post, responses to it, revisiting the history of Linux my interim conclusion is: the Linux system is huge and responds to many factors.
Aspirations of developers, aspirations of users and potential for conflicts therein seem to be the emotional ones.

But above all Linux evolves and good/bad judgements can only be determined with hindsight.
Add that to the respin options and a corollary to the interim conclusion is: why not try it and see?
If it survives the Linux evolutionary curve it must have some strong points however illogical or improper those might seem to be.
Thus spake moi!

MX Linux Forum

Debian (and by extension, MX) is often called too old. What is your response to this?

Re: Debian (and by extension, MX) is often called too old. What is your response to this?

Re: Debian (and by extension, MX) is often called too old. What is your response to this?

Re: Debian (and by extension, MX) is often called too old. What is your response to this?

Re: Debian (and by extension, MX) is often called too old. What is your response to this?

Re: Debian (and by extension, MX) is often called too old. What is your response to this?

Re: Debian (and by extension, MX) is often called too old. What is your response to this?

Re: Debian (and by extension, MX) is often called too old. What is your response to this?

Re: Debian (and by extension, MX) is often called too old. What is your response to this?

Re: Debian (and by extension, MX) is often called too old. What is your response to this?

Re: Debian (and by extension, MX) is often called too old. What is your response to this?