On 04/24/2010 01:02 PM, Dotan Cohen wrote:
On 24 April 2010 02:38, Ron Johnson<ron.l.john...@cox.net> wrote:
On 04/22/2010 03:54 AM, Dotan Cohen wrote:
[snip]
It looks to me that Backports is the best for an everyday
user who values stability, and prefers to use released software
version. Please let me know where I am mistaken. Thanks.
"stable with current releases" is a contradiction. If you want current
releases, run Testing or Unstable. (Ignore the scary words from the
website. Testing and Unstable are Stable Enough.)
Thanks, Ron. I don't see the contradiction: I want released software,
no betas or alphas.
Testing/Sid *occasionally* have beta software (you can tell by the
"-b" in the version number).
Note the word "occasionally".
Mostly, though, since all non-trivial s/w has bugs, Testing and
Unstable shake out packaging bugs and software bugs is released
software.
I am using the word "stable" as in "not crashy
(doesn't fall down)", not in the sense of "doesn't change".
I wondered if Testing or Unstable would provide that.
Yes, absolutely.
--
Dissent is patriotic, remember?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4bd33e01.5010...@cox.net
