If you want to compare, you have to compare Windows releases to the long-term support releases of Linux: Debian stable, RHEL, SUSE Linux Enterprise, Ubuntu LTS or CentOS.
Not older than Windows, surely!!!I know you will probably argue that I should use Debian stable, but that wont cut it for me.
Debian stable - too old software.
You can still backport select applications that NEED to be more current (I do this with firefox), but you don't need to upgrade your bootloader, compiler, C library and shell every week. If you want a stable product, you must let it stabilise instead of throwing untested stuff into the mix for fun.
Some people misunderstand: Debian unstable, Fedora, Ubuntu etc. are not meant to be stable. They are meant to be unstable. If you run them, you must accept this. They are sanitized snapshots with modern software. The stable releases are the long-term support releases, and they ARE stable.
The problem is that there is no easy/hassle-free way to do that on GNU/Linux. Either you use something like backports, which doesn't even have all the packages you need, or you compile all your software from source.
There isn't a good way to install software on a per-user basis either...
It's either system-wide or back to compiling from source.
Preferrably, all my software would be up-to-date while the underlying system (grub/bootloader, initd/systemd, xserver, admin tools, audioserver, desktop manager, etc.) can be as stable and old as hell.
I guess I want to have, and eat my cake at the same time .
I'm open to any suggestions.
Last edited by j2723; 01-12-2013 at 01:22 AM.