Re: [OT] Re: distribution upgrade question
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 09:27:54 +0000
Magnus Therning <magnus@therning.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 02:13:51AM +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> >On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 00:59:08 +0100
> >Florian Kulzer <florian@molphys.leidenuniv.nl> wrote:
> >
> >> Joey Hess wrote:
> >> > Florian Kulzer wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>I would go so far as to say that "Debian Unstable" is an oxymoron.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > From WordNet (r) 2.0 (August 2003) [wn]:
> >> >
> >> > unstable
> >> > ...
> >> > 6: subject to change; variable; "a fluid situation fraught with
> >> > uncertainty"; "everything was unstable following the coup"
> >> > [syn: {fluid}]
> >>
> >> Uh-oh, I obviously should consult a dictionary before shooting off my
> >> mouth like that...
> >>
> >> In my defense, I am a chemist and this seems to have determined my
> >> interpretation of the term:
> >>
> >> 4. Chemistry
> >> a. Decomposing readily.
> >> b. Highly or violently reactive.
> >>
> >> (from dictionary.reference.com)
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Florian
> >
> >When you talk about computers, "unstable" usually doesn't mean anything good, so I don't think your interpretation was bad ;) something like:
> >
> >"X. Computers
> > usually refers to a computer/OS/application that crashes, often
> > without any (apparent) reason ..."
>
> I've had to explain to a manager or two that when Debian uses "unstable"
> it doesn't quite mean what people have become used to. When a certain
> company based in Redmond says "unstable" they really mean UNSTABLE.
> (OTOH when they say "stable" they come close to Debian's use of
> "unstable" :-)
>
> /M
THEY WISH! I would rather run a server with Debian unstable than any M$ OS!
Andrei
--
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. (Albert Einstein)
Reply to: