[Grml] grml or debian?

[s. keeling]

Incoming from johannes swoboda:
> Hello!
> I'm actually using grml with harddisk-installation.I've also installed
> some debian packages.
> My question: What are the main goals or the differents between grml
> and a "normal" debian installation?

"Normal" Debian is Debian Stable, currently Sarge.  In order to create
Stable, Debian uses Testing (currently Etch) and Unstable (always
Sid).  The latter two are merely tools used in creating Stable.  They
can, and should, be used but they're not what Debian has ever been
about.  Debian has always been about creating Stable.

Testing and Unstable have been known to break from time to time.
That's their job; to find bugs before they're released into the wild.

Grml tries to mitigate Unstable's instability by testing upstream
stuff from Sid before allowing it into Grml.  This way, they hope for
the best of both worlds: relative stability as well as bleeding edge
software.

Besides all that, Grml offers lots of neat apps of their choosing, and
lots of neat utilities helpful in using it.  Whether you want to
install it on a hard drive, run it from RAM or CD-ROM, or even a USB
key, Grml's pretty versatile.

It's not perfect; nothing is.  It's more perfect than stock Debian
Sid, and way more up to date than Debian Stable.

Other less important details are the choice of software Grml offers.
No KDE or Gnome; fluxbox instead.  No BitchX ('cause it Sucks! :-),
irssi instead.  Once installed, you can apt-get anything you want that
Grml doesn't provide.

I think it's pretty cool.  I'd love to know why it refuses to install
in this old Compaq of mine, but that's beside the point.


-- 
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
(*)    http://www.spots.ab.ca/~keeling      Please don't Cc: me.
- -