Mark Brown wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 06:11:13PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
>
> [Slow releases]
> > This is a fallacy. The longest Debian release cycle I could find on
> > record was 7 months. In fact, that is the average. Red Hat and Slackware
> > have both had 7 month long release cycles. The shorter ones were for ugly
> > bugs they needed to fix that Debian's release cycle pretty much avoids.
>
> It's not just the time between releases that's important. For various
> reasons (long freezes and unfortunate timing among them) Debian has
> produced releases which were behind the state of the art when they were
> released - X and the kernel in slink, for example. This gives the
> impression that Debian releases are much older than they actually are.
>
> Aside from things like the kernel and X (which provide hardware support
> that some people need) there's not much wrong with old software, but
> people still seem to want the new stuff (right now GNOME is the hot
> thing).
>
> I'd guess that a large proportion of the people who want more than just
> more up to date hardware support really want to be riding unstable.
>
Almost seems like the problem is truth in advertising. Maybe unstable
should be called "cutting-edge"? ;-)
