Re: updated debian development diagram -- comments?
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-01-09 at 10:47 -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Sun, 09 Jan 2005, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > > unstable is described as suited for "...laptops and desktops on non-critical
> > > systems..."
> > > testing is described as "... can be used for desktop systems that need more
> > > stability..."
> > >
> > > I think this both is wrong. Unstable and testing should not be described as
> > > suited for desktops - they are development branches of debian, which are
> > > likely to break, which break and... so on. Most of you know :)
> > Agreed. Unstable is recommended only for people that "know what they are
> > doing". Certainly not for desktop usage, or anything like that.
> Hmmmph. Sid is great as a desktop. I'm running Sid now. Why would
> you say that it's not a good desktop?
Ok. I could have written that sentence better. Here it is:
Agreed. Unstable is recommended only for people that "know what they are
doing". Certainly not for desktop usage by casual users (if they are the
ones doing system administration), or anything like that.
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot