Andy Streich wrote: > latest and greatest of everything. What I did find surprising after reading > this list for a while was that stable meant not only really stable but also > really slow release cycle. Okay, that's the price you pay for "really > stable."
Why be so hung up on release cycles? I mean, really. You know how much
attention I've paid to Debian's release cycles since installing? Well, other
than the libc5 -> glibc2 conversion, none. Again, it has to be stressed,
there is nothing that prevents the user from upgrading any package they choose
to a later version. None. At all. Stable just means it won't be updated out
from under you. That's *it*. You want newer, go get newer! Have fun!
Debian won't be upset, I promise.
> As a newbie I expected there to be a set of OS/utility packages that were
> released together (say, for example, like Sun does with Solaris) and various
> sets of application software that had independent release cycles. The Debian
> model seems to be that all FLOSS software constitutes a "Debian release" and
> once that release happens you can pick and choose what you want. Why is that
> a good thing?
Application behaviors change between releases. Hell, applications
configuration often changes and breaks between releases. Also define
applications versus "OS". MySQL, which is it? I mean it is a dependancy for
many other tools but not something itself that would be considered part of the
OS. Exim? Postfix? X?
As I said, ya want newer, go for it! Stable makes that possible because
it is just that, stable. People can compile for stable knowing what's going
to be there. It isn't a moving target.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
