On Thu, 2005-08-04 at 15:57 -0400, Chad Smith wrote: > "Throughly tested" because it's 3 months old. That's my point. I mean, > I used a Debian-based distro a few months back, brand-new distro hot off > the mirrors, and it had OOo 1.1.2 on it! I mean, we're on the verge of > 1.1.5 - and 2.0 - and the Debs were 2 releases behind, almost 3. If you > want up-to-date stuff, Deb is *not* the way to go. If you want "old > faithful" releases from last year, then Deb is your distro.
These are not exactly major releases from the end-user's perspective. Anyway, Debian stable is meant for environments such as servers, where stability is more important than having the latest version. If you want something more current, then you can use Debian unstable. (It has 1.1.14, incidentally). If you want absolutely bleeding edge, then use experimental. > Debian stuff is two or more releases behind the rpm. It's not making > the users be beta testers. I'm not talking about beta releases, I'm > talking about stuff that's already been alphaed, betaed, RCed, and > approved. And *then* Debian starts its "incredible testing process"? > No thanks, I'll take what the coders are releasing. Again, it depends on which version of Debian you're talking about. As for the test, you're not taking into account that it's not the software that is tested by Debian so much as its integration into the distribution. -- Bruce Byfield 604-421.7177 http://members.axion.net/~bbyfield
