On (16/04/04 10:28), s. keeling wrote: > Incoming from Chris Metzler: > > > > But this assumption is wrong. The purpose of the existence of testing > > and unstable is *not* to give users choices. It may also be true that > > their existence gives users choices; but that's not what they're > > fundamentally for. The purpose of their existence is to facilitate the > > development process that produces stable releases. Users may decide to > > I was around when Ian Murdock first introduced Debian. Back then, we > had SLS and Slackware, the latter having been produced because the > same un-fixed problems tended to be reproduced in subsequent issues of > SLS. Debian's raison d'etre was stability in response to the lack of > it in existing distributions. > > I still think that's what Debian should be striving for. I don't see > any point in catering to bleeding-edge-itis in Debian. If the user > wants/needs newer software than stable provides, the Debian system can > accomodate that through the installation of backports or even > /usr/local. Debian has proven itself robust enough to support the > creation of dependent distributions like Libranet and Knoppix. If the > user demands bleeding edge, that's where they should be looking. > > No change is necessary. If the user thinks stable is obsolete, it > should be up to them to deal with that, and that means they should > learn to add what they want onto stable, or go elsewhere. testing and > unstable are for those who know what they're doing and are willing and > able to understand the consequences, in the spirit of wanting to help > Debian produce a future stable distribution. Debian should not be > bothering to cater to bleeding-edge-itis in a misguided attempt to > open up Debian to more users. Leave that to the Libranets and > Knoppixes. As a relative newbie, this makes eminently good sense to me. After 10 months of woody (on a workstation) I recently upgraded to unstable, with my eyes open having absorbed a lot of information from d-u. I won't say that it has been painless but a valuable learning experience, certainly. And I now have a first class desktop system albeit with some functionality yet to configure.
The thought of anyone installing unstable without understanding the consequences makes me wince. I bypassed testing for reasons that have been well rehearsed in this thread. FWIW I think the Debian community has plenty to do without this proposed diversion of renaming or worse, fundamentally changing the way that the distribution is developing. I suspect that when sarge becomes stable, much of this criticism will go away until the next stable release is imminent. Woody was a significant improvement over potato and I suspect that sarge (with the new installer) will assuage many of the current concerns. I run woody on Mac and PC servers (my first networking experience) and they are a doddle to maintain. I have never used other distros, so I can't make any comparissons but I remain convinced that Debian is the distro for me and anyone who values quality and OSS. In short "it rocks" Regards Clive -- http://www.clivemenzies.co.uk strategies for business -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
