[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Massey) said on Thu, 15 Apr 2004 00:14:05 +1000: > want the very latest and are willing to sacrifice stability." Or > something like that. Explain what the release names mean more accurately, > rather than use new names that will still need explanation.
And one thing that really annoys me is how people misunderstand how *we* use the word "stable", and the miscommunications that result. Before my hardware became dodgy on my home box, I was running unstable, with xfree/experimental. I had uptimes of 70-180 days. My unstable laptop stays up for hundreds of days (much better quality hardware, mainly because I can't tinker with it :), only going out when some fool unplugs the power while I am away, when I happen to be in suspend mode already. When most people refer to unstable, they mean it crashes, not that sometimes packages get a big finicky, and need manual intervention to fix. We mean the latter. I sometimes even get the feeling that experienced Debian people forget which "stability" they are referring to. Certainly, most of the people outside of debian, when I tell them to use testing/unstable if they want recent packages (after they complain about Debian's perceived tardiness), say they don't want a box that crashes on them all the time like Windows. I think *this* is the main cause of confusion with regards to the naming scheme, and I don't think many DDs realise this confusion exists. -- TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/ I repeat myself when under stress. I repeat myself when under stress. I repeat myself when under stress. I repeat myself when under stress. I repeat myself when under stress. I repeat myself when under stress. I repeat myself when under stress. I repeat -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
