Erik de Castro Lopo <[email protected]> writes: > Agreed, but regardless of rolling vs stable releases, if someone were > to say: > > "For any kind of serious Haskell development, it is safer to > pick a Linux distribution with a rolling release schedule rather > than one with periodic stable releases."
Safer? Really? The advantage of rolling releases is that you continually get the latest and greatest. The advantage of stable releases is that you get a consistent set of versions, so that many people will have the same setup, and wrinkles can be worked out. > Comparing rolling releases verses periodic stable releases, I find the > many small glitches pretty evenly spread out across the year to be > less painful than Ubuntu's twice a year up-heaval where I get all this > small gitches bundled up together. ..but if you are in need of compatibility with the rest of your team, you might want to set some sort of baseline instead of continuously upgrading. And, in general, if you want to write software that should work all over, you should choose a conservative development platform. >> If you want to make a fair comparison I agree; this isn't about being "fair", rather, it's about realizing the consequences of your choices. BTW, I'd be very interested (and surprised) in seeing real measurements showing that Ubuntu is slower than Debian - I thought it'd basically be the same thing, only delayed by six months or less. -k -- If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
