[Nottingham] Living with Sid

[Steve Caddy]

From: "Simon Huggins" <huggie at earth.li>

> On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 05:13:00PM +0000, Michael Leuty wrote:
> > He even went so far as to suggest that unstable was no more 
> > unstable than a distro like Red Hat.
> 
> Ha!  Redhat releases go through QA processes before they are released.
> I'd compare them to Debian stable in terms of stability.

Oh, at last... someone else who stands up for RH (I've been running it
for years, and never had any problems). :-) You've made my day.

> I really really really wish people would stop advocating others to run
> unstable.

Indeed. Unstable is just that. If you want unstable, you might as well
go back to the current market leader's product. *ahem*

I would like to know why this "guru" is suggesting that desktops
should run unstable. Surely keeping people working on their desktops
is just as important as keeping the servers up? The only benefit you
may get is quicker bug fix releases, but that the price that something
else might go horribly wrong.

Regards

Steve

--
Steven M Caddy, MEng -----------------------------------------------------
"Hardware - the part of the computer you kick when the software fails"
Email: steve.m.caddy at ntlworld.com