On Mon, 2007-03-26 at 21:25 +0200, Joe Hart wrote: > Roberto wrote: > > That's not really a fair characterization. The Debian project (release > > managers, developers, et al) value the target dates. However, they > > value completeness and stability *more* than the calendar. > > There should be no calender. It should be measured in quality, just > like it is. If one doesn't like having to wait for things to be marked > stable, they can upgrade to Testing or even Unstable, but they have to > accept the risks that go along with that upgrade. If they don't want > that risk, then there is nothing that says they can't switch to another > distribution, but from my experience (which I admit is limited), no > other system offers both the flexibility nor the quality of Debian.
In other words: in Debian, stability and quality is prioritized over timely releases. Which is good. (I will be patient.) And really, is there any other distribution that supports as many packages and architectures?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
