On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 10:47:50AM -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.
>
> As for "testing", well, that one can be recommended to users that need a
> very up-to-date system but who can tolerate the lack of speedy security
> updates... AND who know how to deal with ocasional breakage (yes, sometimes
> it happens even in testing).
>
> > good ol' "debian releases to seldom" argument...) - but as said I don't think
> > Debian should propagate this misconcepts.
>
> Agreed.
>
Hi Henrique and Holger,
thanks for pointing out those points in the wording. I have removed
those because they are not in agreement with Debian's position.
I added (hopefully) more informative comments.
-Kev
--
counter.li.org #238656 -- goto counter.li.org and be counted!
(__)
(oo)
/------\/
/ | ||
* /\---/\
~~ ~~
...."Have you mooed today?"...
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature