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?"...
Description: Digital signature