Upgrading to Edgy Eft

[Alexander Skwar]

Derek Broughton wrote:
>   If it is _so_ unstable, the archive should not
> be open.

Although you keep on saying that, it's totally wrong. The archive *should*
be open, so that it's easy to join the development. And open development
has its merits.

>>> I really can't understand the anger & bitterness I'm seeing both about
>>> people using Edgy, and more about people posting their experiences and
>>> concerns here.
>> 
>> I think this was discussed and as far as I am concerned it was
>> established that nobody is bitter or angry about edgy usage as such.
> 
> Yes it's been discussed - but there's a whole line of people lining up
> behind Alexander telling us to keep our edgy posts off this list.

Why's that, if I'm all wrong?

>  They
> certainly give the impression of being angry and bitter to me.

They certainly don't. Nobody has a problem if you use Edgy. But
at least I don't care about Edgy problems, as I don't use Edgy.
And if I'd use Edgy, I wouldn't care much about non-Edgy problems.
Now, that has nothing at all to do with Edgy - I am *NOT advocating
distribution specific lists here! Not at all! The reason why I don't
care about Edgy (or non-Edgy) problems is, that Edgy is not a stable
distribution (yet). If I had the proper knowledge, I *WOULD* care
about hoary or warty problems, though. Reason: Those are stable
distributions - maybe a bit outdated, but none-the-less stable
distributions for which there is support.

>  And that's
> making _me_ angry and bitter.

Why?

Alexander Skwar
-- 
The human mind treats a new idea the way the body treats a strange
protein -- it rejects it.
		-- P. Medawar