musicman datakid at
Tue Sep 18 06:59:42 UTC 2007

On 9/18/07, Jonathan Kaye <jdkaye10 at> wrote:

> For business/education/large-scale users, it's about stability. There's a
> trade-off between stability and meeting release deadlines. Microsoft is an
> excellent example of this. If I were in charge of maintaining 150
> workstations, I think I'd prefer the stability option and take upgrades
> when they were ready.

While this is mostly true, I wouldn't say that it all is. There is a
large security aspect in there as well.

And one of the reasons why there are such feisty (!) fights on the
topic of debian's stable is exactly that - other systems are offering
all the new eyecandy/functionality of the latest and greatest
software, which can often be missing from debian stable.

I find that the people who like debian stable the most are
distance-based sys admins who can just leave it go once the initial
conf is done, due to it's stability (and a cron job for updates).

Since unstable/testing still usually provide a better experience than
the latest patched XP, there's not really any reason for a desktop
user to worry about using stable.

I hope the original poster has got what they was looking for?


If footy was free, we could have a class war.
Let's smash Eddies' empire to the floor.
My friends and I keep talking about smashing the State,
but Olympic Sports Committee won't include assassinations.
I try so hard to be a trouble making creep,
but my phone conversations send the AFP to sleep.
If only I was a professional sports star,
Revolution would be televised wide and far.
If only Telstra Dome would fill with the lumpen proletariat,
we could have a riot, no one would forget it!
If footy was free, we could have a class war.
The Assassination Collective.

More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list