On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 07:58:37AM -0500, stan wrote: > 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?
Redhat 6 has the latest whiz-bang Gnome and KDE, or did you just forget to read? -- Nathan Norman - Incanus Networking mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people. -- Laurence J. Peter -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]