Ryo Furue wrote:
> Excuse me, but I interpret what you say in two ways:
> 1) The current stable version (which I use) is "old";
> 2) You thought I was using an obsolete version (potate or earlier).
> I don't know which is the correct interpretation, although
> your reference to "unstable" seems to suggest (1).
> I'm using the "newest" stable version. :)
The current stable *is* old. Isn't it on one side or the other of the
year old mark?
> But, vendors don't sell Windows software that doesn't work on
> the current version of Windows XP. Perhaps, in your perception,
> the unstable version of Debian is "the" current version? :)
It is.
> If that be so, the name "unstable" is misleading, which has scared
> me off thus far.
It does and has been discussed many times here. Stable and unstable are
not "This is stable code" and "this is unstable code". It means "this
version's packages *do not change* except in cases of serious security
violations" and "this version's packages packages do change."
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature