On Tue, May 02, 2000 at 12:59:29PM -0700, Kenneth Scharf wrote:
> >I have found personally that debian Patoto being
> >branded a unstable version is
> >a politcal problem and i agree entirely with Mike.
> Maybe the word 'unstable' should be changed to
> 'under-development', 'next-release',
> 'watch-this-space', 'in-flux' or something else.
> Unstable really means 'moving-target' not necessary
> 'crashes-every-5-minutes', but politicaly that's what
> it implies. (how about 'radio-active'?)
``Well, it's "unstable" as far as Debian goes, but compared to most other
things, that's pretty stable.''
``"unstable" doesn't refer to the system once you've installed it, but the
distribution as a whole: what is and isn't included changes daily, and
that's the sense they mean when they say "unstable"''
And unstable *does* break severely every now and then.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG encrypted mail preferred.
``We reject: kings, presidents, and voting.
We believe in: rough consensus and working code.''
-- Dave Clark
Attachment:
pgplyPZuQKvq6.pgp
Description: PGP signature