On 0, schnobs@babylon-kino.de wrote: [snip] > Now, I developed the habit of updating at least once a week, and admittedly never even > wondered why, until I saw Sean's lines above... > Why is Debian a 'changing' distribution? Don't get me wrong: I got used to it, it's > alright for me, but: why? Because people want the latest and greatest, and they get it, too, it's just that, when you get the bleeding edge with Debian it's also labelled 'unstable', instead of the crummy 'release quality' we've all seen with other distros. > While I'm about it, there's more I'd like to know. Like, what is wrong with 2.4 kernels? > Still running 2.2 and don't know what I'm missing, either, but I'm wondering. The 2.2 / > 2.4 issue seems to be a popular topic, but I never got the point. apt-get install kernel-image-2.4.18-your-architecture-here > And, finally, since my fist encounter a few months ago, woody has been stable enough for > me. Will the 'testing' distribution always be reasonably stable, and does 'stable' > actually mean 'rock solid'? Or was it just my luck that I arrived at a time when woody was > already mature enough to be usable? <ignorant opinion> I suspect that woody is particularly stable, for a testing distro, because it is about to be released as stable. In general it can not be expected to be really stable. Obviously, once woody because stable, a whole lot of less-tested packages will migrate into the new testing distro - and all the bugs will be gradually ironed out. </ignorant opinion> Tom -- Tom Cook Information Technology Services, The University of Adelaide "That you're not paranoid does not mean they're not out to get you." - Robert Waldner Get my GPG public key: https://pinky.its.adelaide.edu.au/~tkcook/tom.cook-at-adelaide.edu.au
Attachment:
pgpRBm54nm5OU.pgp
Description: PGP signature