what's the oldest "this information is correct as of" you've ever found while browsing the debian wiki
i just found "working configuration as of September 7, 2007" on an article that references linux kernel 2.6.21
i used to use debian stable, until one day i found out that gimp 2.10 had been out for several months (over half a year iirc) while stable was still on 2.8, at which point i switched to testing
i switched to arch in 2017 or so after reading that a long-standing issue with my laptop had been fixed in the latest linux kernel, and then realising that said linux kernel version wouldn't be arriving on debian for like a year, and that arch had it mere days after release
this is what it feels like to come across a debian wiki page saying something like "TODO: as of debian etch this no longer works, needs an update"
@Ilian_Amarin i find that 90% of what's on the arch wiki still applies (as long as you swap pacman with apt and all that), aside from the times debian desides a file should go in some weird directory that isn't the standard (looking at you, /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu)
@Ilian_Amarin @lynnesbian i do wonder, sometimes, whether this is due to just people being better at documentation in the Arch project or because of #mediawiki vs #moinmoin :)
@lynnesbian @Canageek I work on a server software and Debian support is the main reason for a lot of legacy code we need to keep supporting for *years* after we have a more stable and faster solution. It would make our job so much easier if we could drop it. 😕
@lynnesbian @Canageek Well, Red Hat/CentOS is just as bad.
@lynnesbian I feel this. I'm using debian stretch at work. It's so annoying to know about bug fixes that are not available yet because it was fixed "only" 3 years ago... 😒
@lynnesbian The arch wiki was one of the main reasons i moved over.
Its just vastly superior to most of the documentation available for Debian and ubuntu.