On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 06:04:33PM -0400, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote: > On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 04:39:22PM -0500, Kevin Ruml wrote: > | This topic/suggestion that desktop users should use "unstable" rather than > | "stable", since it's no more unstable than other distros latest releases, > | comes up regularly. What is the reason "unstable" isn't renamed to something > | else to dispel the stigma the name gives? > > How about shortening the release cycle so that "stable" is more > up-to-date? Let's solve the problem rather than the symptons. :-). > > (Note - this is not an invitation to begin a flamefest regarding why > the release cycle is so long or to make suggestions regarding what > other people can do to fix it. Instead it is an invitation to first > recognize the issue and second to help resolve it)
I think the issue is recognised. But due to the nature of the beast nothing can change, so there's no point discussing it. Personally I don't see what the big deal is. I am yet another happy long-time unstable user. It's not as if it upgrades packages without the user instigating the upgrade. So once the user has a stable unstable system <grin>, stability can be kept by not upgrading. A -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
