Sure, but even in those "few cases" Testing will get them soon.
I did read at some point that Testing may receive security updates later than stable, might be in those cases in which backports come straight from unstable.
Sure, but even in those "few cases" Testing will get them soon.
I did read at some point that Testing may receive security updates later than stable, might be in those cases in which backports come straight from unstable.
I don’t recommend going for (Debian’s/Devuan’s) testing (branch) as it targets a peculiar niche that I fail to understand; e.g. it doesn’t receive the security backports like Stable does nor does it receive them as soon as Unstable/Sid does. Unstable/Sid could work, but I would definitely setup (GRUB-)Btrfs + Timeshift/Snapper to retain my sanity.
From https://backports.debian.org/ :
Backports are packages taken from the next Debian release (called "testing"), adjusted and recompiled for usage on Debian stable
So by definition, security backports in stable are present in Testing in the form of regular packages, right?
I remember having some issue like that, but I'm not sure if this was the fix.
Try unchecking "Show desktop notifications when the song changes" on Spotify's settings (right now it's under the Display section).
Makes sense, thanks.
New to Linux: in which case would you stick with an "old-old-stable" release?
Software incompatibility?
At first glance the difference in width comes from the front wings, which protruded beyond the wheels in the '22 cars.
So hopefully the wings last longer in wheel to wheel action.
restricting the total amount used and basically anything else makes more sense
Oh you meant eliminate the flow limit, I thought you meant eliminate the fuel itself. And I agree (with the caveat you said, also limiting the total amount).
That won't happen for 15 years at least, only Formula E can be fully electric.
With an FIA exclusivity deal through 2039 to be the sole EV single-seat series on the FIA menu, Formula E has plenty of time to grow.
I particularly like the new Mapped Route Parameters.
❌ /show/{id}/
✔ /show/{id:document}/
For multiple entities, it's cleaner and more beginner-friendly than using the #[MapEntity]
attribute (which is still an option).
And imo it's a good move to deprecate "not passing the mapping" even for single entities. With the mapping the behaviour is more intuitive and "feels" less magic.
That's a valid opinion. And I admit that at some point you must move to some form of client-side rendering.
I still haven't (for some admin panels too, and websites), so I don't feel the need to switch.
Aren't you only saying, indirectly, that server-side rendering is "antiquated"?
Unless you mean that mixing logic with templates is bad, in which case I agree.
Ok, I understand what you meant, thanks.
Yeah, I wouldn't run it in a production environment.