Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for wheezy-backports)
- Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 08:49:05 -0500
- From: rhkramer@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for wheezy-backports)
Intentionally cross posted.
On Friday, January 12, 2018 04:58:38 AM Richard Hector wrote:
> Apologies for my misunderstanding. I hadn't made the mental link from
> wheezy to LTS (I don't (think I) have any wheezy machines left myself,
> but have acquired clients who do).
Aside: For those on the debian-user lists, the thread came from the debian-
backports list, but my frustration should probably be expressed more to the
debian-user list (or debian-developer list, assuming there is such a list (to
which I am not subscribed).
I like Debian, a lot, and have used it since 5.n (was that Lenny??), and will
probably stick with it as my main daily user system (for some special purposes
I will install other distros--e.g., I want to do some development for an
application (Scintilla) that requires C++ version 17 (iiuc) (although they do
have an LTS support version that can be compiled with C++ version 11).
But the various names and use of those names gets very frustrating for me, and
I suspect I am not the only one. The numbered versions, the Toy Story names,
and then the testing, stable, old stable, old old stable is just frustrating.
I'm not proposing a soltuion, I'm just expressing frustration. I guess, for
me, at first glance, the numbered versions seem easiest (and most
straightforward) to me.
I do susbscribe to the backports list. Maybe someone will tell me that as an
"ordinary user" I shouldn't, but I think others like myself may subscribe just
to keep somewhat informed.
Anyway, have a good day.