Steve Greenland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Which is it? Do your friends want the newest bleeding edge stuff, or > do they want stability? They can't have both at the same time! Oh, I > see, the want the newest, but they want us to call it "stable".
I don't know.. IMO unstable is often more stable then any rathat release! I don't care personally what it's called as long as it works. You are right they want it to be called "stable". > Why is is this basic distinction so hard to explain to people? Testing > and reliability take time. During that time, new features are going to > show up in various parts of the system. Along with those new features > come compatibility and reliability problems. You can either have the new > features, or you can have a tested, stable, reliable *system*. *YOU* > *CAN'T* *HAVE* *BOTH*. I don't know why it's impossible to get it through their thick skulls, but it is. When I finally upgraded to potato it was because I needed a newer kernel to work with two pieces of hardware that was unsupported by 2.0 and also to add software compatilbity with Tru64 UNIX. I was also using serveral things, ipmaq to name one, that were semi broken with slink and a 2.2 kernel. Currently the stable release cycle seems to be about every 14 months, which is far too long to keep up with %25 of new hardware. I don't care to have the absolute most bleeding edge. OTO I don't want to upgrade a server, to support new/additional hardware, to something that is *known* to be unstable. So we end up with a loose-loose situation... JMO, Ron
