Debs: <snip> > Debian 1.3.1 is a year old. Six months ago 2.0 was announced as "Near > Completion", when it was nearer inception than completion. > > I'm not ragging on the Debian team, just saying lighten up on Red Hat > a little. We're all on the same side, eh? They chose to risk leaping > before looking, while Debian risked hesitating. Was the latter more > prudent? Maybe. Are my Debian 1.3.1 systems prehistoric? Yes. Is > that bad? Sometimes. <snip>
Is *that* what happened to Red Hat? I've been running 4.2 for a while with no problems, but have heard nothing but problems regarding 5.0 and 5.1. So I ordered Debian with the idea that it would be more stable, etc. I ordered 1.3.1 to get a feel for the distribution before I go for the beta 2.0. (Still hasn't arrived yet; hello LSL?) I haven't been able to figure out why RH went so wrong when they were doing so well. How can you mismanage something like this? Paul M. Foster -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null
