Re: Re: Debian has turned unusable.
On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 06:04:33PM -0400, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 04:39:22PM -0500, Kevin Ruml wrote:
> | This topic/suggestion that desktop users should use "unstable" rather than
> | "stable", since it's no more unstable than other distros latest releases,
> | comes up regularly. What is the reason "unstable" isn't renamed to something
> | else to dispel the stigma the name gives?
>
> How about shortening the release cycle so that "stable" is more
> up-to-date? Let's solve the problem rather than the symptons. :-).
>
> (Note - this is not an invitation to begin a flamefest regarding why
> the release cycle is so long or to make suggestions regarding what
> other people can do to fix it. Instead it is an invitation to first
> recognize the issue and second to help resolve it)
I think the issue is recognised. But due to the nature of the beast
nothing can change, so there's no point discussing it.
Personally I don't see what the big deal is. I am yet another happy
long-time unstable user. It's not as if it upgrades packages without
the user instigating the upgrade. So once the user has a stable
unstable system <grin>, stability can be kept by not upgrading.
A
Reply to: