On Thu, 2002-06-27 at 20:06, Jeff Waugh wrote: > > Yeah, but we *are* running unstable. :) > > That's a shithouse excuse for mindlessly pissing your users and maintainers > (who will be receiving the bug reports) off. Giving them a choice is one > thing [1], painting them into a corner is quite different. Hell no. They have a choice. If they choose stable or testing then they'll get the old, stable, tested GNOME. If they choose unstable (as I have chosen) then they'll get the latest thing. Unstable users are used to stuff like perl and libc breaking. If themes don't have as convenient or consistent a UI for a little while they'll deal with it. Unstable really is unstable a lot of the time. I've buggered my system up by apt-get upgrading at the wrong time and had to manually fix things. I had none of these problems upgrading to gnome2 from experimental. Ian DISCLAIMER: I've been using Debian since you were in nappies and and at times have hacked on GNOME for a living - so I guess I'm not your average user.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part