On Feb 22, 2013, at 10:22 PM, Chris Bannister wrote: > 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.
Maybe the Debian stable is where the developers keep their horses... Take a look at: http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/ch-ftparchives -- Glenn English -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
