On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 04:23:55PM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote: > well, sometime bugs get all the way to stable, no software is without > bugs. What I was talking about is that 'unstable' is pretty much only > usable desktop Clearly not, or you wouldn't find it necessary to complain about the fact that you currently find it unusable. Unstable is, first and foremost, the staging ground for the next stable release. If users find it usable for their purposes, more power to them. If not, fixing unstable for them should not take precedence over the actual development processes; those users should be using something else instead, or learning how to coexist with development shake-ups while running unstable. I won't try to suggest here what that other something should be, because I cannot fathom what sort of a desktop user *needs* cutting-edge software. The constantly shifting sand dunes of unstable are precisely what I *wouldn't* look for in a desktop environment that I actually plan to use for productivity. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature