On Mi, 11 iul 12, 21:40:38, Christofer C. Bell wrote: > On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 8:05 PM, John Hasler <jhas...@newsguy.com> wrote: > > > > It isn't. See <http://www.debian.org/volatile/> . You want backports: > > <http://backports-master.debian.org/> > > No, while that meets the need, I don't think that's what they want. > The posters agreeing with each other (and I agree with them) are > looking for something "official."
But backports are official now (didn't used to), and iceweasel in stable is still usable in many cases, why drop it? > For example, RHEL, while being even "more" stable than Debian (they > support it for a decade instead of 2.5 years), keeps the important > *desktop* applications (Firefox, OpenOffice) reasonably up to date and > working (e.g.; Pidgin) when they break due to circumstances outside of > their control (in the case of Pidgin, Yahoo! changed their chat > protocol. Debian left it broken in Etch -- RHEL fixed it). There was a backport for pidgin too. > I do agree with the others that this policy of never updating *for any > reason, even reasonable reasons* is quite a millstone around Debian's > neck. It's ironic that out of all the major Linux distributions, only > RHEL takes (IMO) a sensible middle ground, a balance between stability > and unusability. Debian doesn't have the same resources either. Kind regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
