On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 09:39:56PM +0000, Diego Iastrubni wrote: > בשבת, 4 באוקטובר 2003, 19:14, נכתב על ידי Simon Oosthoek: > > On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 08:43:07PM +0000, Diego Iastrubni wrote: > > > I agree. Also seeing "rc4" "beta2" on a running system does look bad. > > > A "security update" or just "update" will be a good idea IMHO. > > > > I'm sure the final of 9.2 will have no sign of a RC on oo.o 1.1 (that was > > the case on the rc2 of 9.2) I don't know for sure, but I think rc5 was > > picked up before the CDs reached their master state for duplication. I'm > > confident that no average end user will notice anything of the fact that > > it's actually a RC and not the renamed 1.1 final. > that is not what I am talking about. > Even in rc19 is exactly final, it's nice to have an rpm which is named final. > It looks better for the "ignorant public".
I believe you are exaggerating the problem, since if applied strictly, your line of thinking would make 1.0.3 final better than 1.1rc5, which I seriously doubt. In fact, if this is really your feeling, I can definately recommend debian stable! It may be a few years out of date on average, but it's definately considered to be a very stable distribution (although it does contain some packages in beta or RC releases), never mind... Simon
