Hi, Ben: On Thursday 22 July 2010 08:09:44 Ben Finney wrote: > Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> writes: > > This one [claim of Debian's libraries being out-of-date] always > > boggles me and makes me wonder if we should present Debian unstable or > > testing as the "typical" installation. Debian testing (and often > > Debian unstable) is more stable than the distributions with equivalent > > up-to-date libraries, and those distributions generally never offer > > anything remotely like Debian stable. (RHEL is considerably more > > unstable than Debian stable *and* has even older software, for > > example.) > > Which of the above uses of “stable” refers to stability (“slow rate of > change”), and which refers to reliability (“high likelihood of working > when needed”)? Too many conversations conflate the two, and in this case > I think the distinction is important.
Why? With my user hat on the only stability I care of is "it ain't break". When a system breaks it makes no distintion if it's because a not so well managed upgrade, an app bug or an interaction problem among different packages. In fact, system-wide, an upgrade failure is nothing but another bug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201007221047.21295.jesus.nava...@undominio.net