Re: Chromium 11 on Debian 6.0.1 Stable

[Camaleón <noelamac@gmail.com>]

On Wed, 25 May 2011 10:40:48 -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:

> In <[🔎] pan.2011.05.25.15.12.10@gmail.com>, Camaleón wrote:
>>On Wed, 25 May 2011 09:21:24 -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>>> In <[🔎] pan.2011.05.25.14.04.35@gmail.com>, Camaleón wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 25 May 2011 08:50:56 -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>>>>> "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
>>
>>Grr!! :-)
> 
> Sorry, I am being a bit pedantic, but I don't consider much in Debian
> stable as "obsolete".  Check the popcon scores for real usage numbers.

And I didn't say that.

I was not speaking for the whole Debian stable packages but a specific 
package (Iceweasel) and yes, I consider the Iceweasel 3.0.6 branch is 
obsolete/legacy/unmaintained/deprecated/outdated or whatever term you 
prefer.

And it's not me who thinks that way, but Mozilla who tagged it so.

The problem here is that nowadays the browser represents (for the average 
user) the ~70% of the computer usage, it has to be in "good fit".

> I consider very little in Debian testing / Sid as "stable", and I think
> all good software deserves some time as stable-but-not-obsolete. :)

Again, all my systems (racked servers, workstations, desktops and my own 
computer) run lenny and I neither feel "obsolete".

>>But "deprecated" and "obsolete" are pretty the same. Should you have
>>said "unmaintained"...
> 
> Deprecated comes before obsolete.  

You are going into much detail here...

> Ideally, obsolete comes before unmaintained, but sometimes that's not
> true.

(...)

I only know that Firefox's 3.0.x branch has reached its end-of-life and 
so no more updates/enhancements for it. You can call that how you like :-)

Greetings,

-- 
Camaleón