Xfce is very slow, part 2

[Kevin Chadwick]

previously on this list Wes Gregg contributed:

> Since 2007?(!?!)  I know the folks at Debian don't get into a hurry, lol (probably still waiting to see if that automobile thing I'd just a fad)... But I've been reading threads at the XFCE forum for months, now, and it looks like about 65% of the people trying to get help with issues related to bugs are running Debian "Stable." How they can call it that without laughing, IDK. If they really cared about stability, when new versions of files were released that FIX BUGS, they'd place them into their repos and remove the old versions so that the next time their users ran their update app (be it graphical or a command line command), their systems would actually become stable (IMHO).
> 


Absolute rubbish, it's stable because things like commercially licensed
software doesn't get broken by OS package upgrades which DO still get
security updates etc.. They may have issues patching at times and
because all bugs are fixed and thoroughly tested for like two years
before they make a release. Xfce is quite well tested I believe and so
it would be good if they could make exceptions but they do have less
supported repos, if you want newer apps.

Debian is certainly more stable than say Fedora or Bleeding Edge Arch
where they have shipped udisks2 meant to bring seats for enterprise
users (5% of users) to replace udisks in the past before it has 30% of
the functionality that 99% of users actually use (as confirmed by the
udisks developer) and where they expect users to fix the system after
upgrades and keep an eye on the website so they don't break their
system.


> I don't know much about the technical side of Linux, but I know a little - so I have, in the past, tried to help people. Every time the person turned out to be a DS user, the problem turned out to be that the file(s) in question ended up being at least one version - and sometimes several - behind, so of course they never received bugfixes. 

I understand what made you draw this conclusion but it was
probably towards the end of a Debian release's lifetime where
upstream support for older libraries wanes and they were trying to get
the latest package of something working or mixed repos other than the
lesser known partially supported (as less tested) ones containing the
latest upstream packages.

They do receive bugfixes. Security patches can take longer as they
may need porting but certainly the more used packages are far more
bug-free than any Bleeding Edge system which includes newly introduced
bugs including security ones that are unknown. In fact debian probably
causes fixes to happen in the bleeding edge systems that simply wouldn't
happen otherwise.

There are also stable, unstable and experimental Debian versions so
are you just meaning stable?

You know Ubuntu is based on Debian, though I'm not sure if it's
unstable or experimental or between the two these days.


> It was pretty discouraging and when I tried to politely suggest that
> they switch to a distro that actually cared about reducing its users'
> problems, I was generally met with outright hostility (why is that?).

Perhaps they knew more than your stated little about Linux in that
that is the whole point of Debian?

Features come slower which can be annoying and may be seen as users
problems but problems are less likely.

> 
> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> 
> 

I bet you think your Android is more bug-free than Debian, well it
isn't unless it's a nexus and you upgraded like today. (Windows and
Apple phones are far worse though except when a provider prevents
updates)

-- 
_______________________________________________________________________

'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work
together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a
universal interface'

(Doug McIlroy)

In Other Words - Don't design like polkit or systemd
_______________________________________________________________________