On Sat, Nov 27, 2004 at 11:15:26PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Andrew Suffield wrote: > >On Sat, Nov 27, 2004 at 01:34:09PM +1100, alexeijh@westnet.com.au wrote: > >>People often suggest running testing or unstable. "It's just as stable as > >>any distro". I have never agreed with this. The reason for this is that > >>neither are engineered or intended for being an end product. > >This is an improper definition of 'stable'. It doesn't mean > >'reliable', it means 'not changing'. The important feature of a stable > >release is that it stays the same. > > Not changing does actually mean it's reliable -- you can rely on doing > the same thing today as it did yesterday. Yes, very clever, you've successfully conflated the terminology. He was obviously referring to 'no/low serious bugs', as distinct from 'stable'. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature