On 2004-04-12, Cybe R. Wizard penned: > > Well said, as was the rest of your post.
Thank you =) > I would just like to add (since no one else has(which I can barely > believe)) that the 'unstable' version is decidedly /stable/ for > desktop/workstation use. I (no Linux guru) have had uptimes of 60+ > days and only that little because of electrical outages. The version > names are somewhat misleading, therefore, because 'unstable' is quite > as stable as some other distro's newest and best. Well, "more unstable than the stable distribution" takes a lot longer to type and wouldn't fit on a CD volume label =P I am of mixed opinions about recommending stable vs. unstable. I generally feel that unstable administration is best left to those who have a pretty good sense of how the debian system works; on the other hand, those who are new to the debian system are more likely to stick around if they have access to the latest and greatest, and stable just can't do that. On the third hand, expecting novice debian users to configure apt pinning on a stable system seems a bit much -- I myself only learned about pinning a few months ago, and I'm sure I don't know the half of it! If you really wanted to toy with names, perhaps "change-averse" and "change-friendly" would be more appropriate monikers for these distributions, with testing being renamed "developer_playground" or something. > Cybe R. Wizard > -of course, YMMV and you get to keep both pieces if it /does/ break Indeed. -- monique -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
