On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:28:36PM -0600, Mark Allums wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 08:51:17PM +0100, [email protected] > > wrote: > > > Some people will say that unstable is better for security issues, > > > because it is harder to exploit flaws when the software changes > > > constantly. > > > > Really??? They obviously don't understand the meaning of stable. (Hint, > > it doesn't mean unlikely to crash.) > > It has two meanings for us, and one determines which is meant by context.
Right. Debian stable doesn't mean unlikely to crash. It's the original meaning, too BTW. -- "If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." --- Malcolm X -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130223052205.GB19013@tal
