On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 06:04:49PM -0600, Dave Sherohman wrote: > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:11:02PM -0500, stan wrote: > > Well, then shouldn't it allow "stable" to be released often enough that it > > acn be used in production> For instance how old are the prel modules, and > > devlopment environment in it? Ancinet by modern standards. > > Heh... I never can quite figure out why people keep asserting that > stable is too old for production systems. My servers are all running > either woody (the current stable) or potato (the old stable (Oh my > god! The software is three years old!)). Desktops are mostly RedHat > 6 or so, with some potato, a very little woody, or X terminals > connected to a potato server. I have yet to receive a single > complaint from any of my users about the software being too old. > > While I can accept that there are some people who need the latest > whiz-bang software to do their work, the vast majority of us don't. >
You may have made my point for me :-) Is the reason that you have RedHat dekstops to have more modern Gnome or KDE packages? I really don't want to get nto the rpm *^LL biz! -- "They that would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]