Re: branding debian releases
tom_massey@pacific.net.au (Tom Massey) said on Thu, 15 Apr 2004 00:14:05 +1000:
> want the very latest and are willing to sacrifice stability." Or
> something like that. Explain what the release names mean more accurately,
> rather than use new names that will still need explanation.
And one thing that really annoys me is how people misunderstand how
*we* use the word "stable", and the miscommunications that result.
Before my hardware became dodgy on my home box, I was running
unstable, with xfree/experimental. I had uptimes of 70-180 days.
My unstable laptop stays up for hundreds of days (much better quality
hardware, mainly because I can't tinker with it :), only going out
when some fool unplugs the power while I am away, when I happen to
be in suspend mode already.
When most people refer to unstable, they mean it crashes, not that
sometimes packages get a big finicky, and need manual intervention to
fix. We mean the latter.
I sometimes even get the feeling that experienced Debian people forget
which "stability" they are referring to.
Certainly, most of the people outside of debian, when I tell them to
use testing/unstable if they want recent packages (after they complain
about Debian's perceived tardiness), say they don't want a box that
crashes on them all the time like Windows.
I think *this* is the main cause of confusion with regards to the
naming scheme, and I don't think many DDs realise this confusion
exists.
--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
I repeat myself when under stress. I repeat myself when under
stress. I repeat myself when under stress. I repeat myself when
under stress. I repeat myself when under stress. I repeat myself
when under stress. I repeat myself when under stress. I repeat
Reply to: