On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 02:48:10PM -0800, Jon Kent wrote: > Time, I'm afraid, is something I lack. Don't get me > wrong the work Branden has done is great, what I'm > trying to point out is that 4.2 is not in stable and, > currently, will no tbe in stable for a year or more. > Thats not good. I think 2.2 is still the default > kernel in 3.0 (I could be wrong) and so on.
3.0 also included a 2.4 kernel as an option. Why the conservative default should be cited as a sign that Debian is "behind the times", I cannot fathom. Such conservativism has served business users VERY well. And once again, the comparison is being made between Debian *stable* and Gentoo, which resembles it not in the least. You seem to be suggesting that Debian stable should target bleeding-edge users at the expense of users who actually depend on a *stable* OS. Well, nuts to that -- if you want newer software, you know where to get it. > This is not a good situation and it will only get > worse is the situation does not improve. Sure I can > grab this stuff from testing but I need it in stable > in order for me to use in in a production system. > This, obviously cannot happen at the moment as stable > is a long long way off. Believe me, I've been around > this for longer than I care remember, Debian will > become an also-ran akin to Slackware if things do > _not_ change. So? Debian is already an "also-ran" in the minds of some -- there aren't many of those whose opinions I value. This isn't a popularity contest, and the developers already here are already doing what they believe is most important for the furthering of Debian's cause. Don't expect grandstanding about "what Debian needs to do" to influence anyone here. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
pgpmc8uEL7pmA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
