jdkaye10 at yahoo.es
Tue Sep 18 07:24:09 UTC 2007
> On 9/18/07, Jonathan Kaye <jdkaye10 at yahoo.es> 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.
You mean testing/unstable I guess, and I agree. That was my point.
> I hope the original poster has got what they was looking for?
Registerd Linux user #445917 at http://counter.li.org/
Please do not send me copies of list mail. I read the lists. Thanks!
More information about the ubuntu-users