unstable is "unstable"; stable is "outdated"
On Fri, 2002-02-01 at 01:42, Jason Lim wrote:
> We have production boxes running unstable with no problem. Needed to run
> unstable because only unstable had some new software, unavailable in
> stable. Its a pity stable gets so outdated all the time as compared to
> other distros like Redhat and Caldera (stable still on 2.2 kernel), but
> thats a topic for a separate discussion.
This is really a shame. It's my biggest complaint with Debian by far.
The tools work very well, but the release cycle is such that you can't
use a "stable" revision of the distribution and have modern packages
I can't imagine this issue is being ignored, but is it discussed on a
policy list, probably? It seems like FreeBSD's -RELEASE, -STABLE,
-CURRENT scheme works much better than what Debian has. I've never seen
big political arguments on this mailing list, but I always hear that
Debian as an organization is often too burdened with internal bickering
and politics to move forward with big changes. Is that the case here?
Just curious, not trying to start a flame war.
Jeff S Wheeler email@example.com
Software Development Five Elements, Inc