In <[🔎] email@example.com>, Camaleón wrote: >On Wed, 25 May 2011 08:50:56 -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: >> In <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org>, Camaleón wrote: >>>Today's >>>browsers upgrade to a new version in just two months (!) and you are >>>left with an obsolete package for several years. >>> >> "Obsolete" isn't the right term. > >How would you call the Firefox 3.0.x branch? Legacy? I'd call 3.0.x deprecated but, I'd call 3.5.x stable. :P I seriously don't trust upstreams, even the ones I depend on most. Far too many bugs are found and fixed between upstream release and Debian release for anything Mozilla (or KDE) produces to be called "stable". >> <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/obsolete> > >*** >obsolete (comparative more obsolete, superlative most obsolete) > >1. (of words, equipment, etc.) no longer in use; gone into disuse; >disused or neglected (often by preference for something newer, which >replaces the subject). > >(...) > >Synonyms > >* (no longer in use): ancient, antiquated, antique, archaic, disused, >neglected, old, old-fashioned, out of date >*** > >"Obsolete" can fit. That are not "no longer in use", nor have they "gone into disuse", nor are they "disused or neglected". So, no, they aren't obsolete. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. email@example.com ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.