Le jeudi 22 juillet 2010 à 16:09 +1000, Ben Finney a écrit : > Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> writes: > > > This one [claim of Debian's libraries being out-of-date] always > > boggles me and makes me wonder if we should present Debian unstable or > > testing as the "typical" installation. Debian testing (and often > > Debian unstable) is more stable than the distributions with equivalent > > up-to-date libraries, and those distributions generally never offer > > anything remotely like Debian stable. (RHEL is considerably more > > unstable than Debian stable *and* has even older software, for > > example.) > > Which of the above uses of “stable” refers to stability (“slow rate of > change”), and which refers to reliability (“high likelihood of working > when needed”)? Too many conversations conflate the two, and in this case > I think the distinction is important.
Having already seen a major postfix upgrade which broke all existing installations in a RHEL update, I think we can talk of both stability and reliability in both contexts. -- .''`. : :' : “Fuck you sir, don’t be suprised when you die if `. `' you burn in Hell, because I am a solid Christian `- and I am praying for you.” -- Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1279783868.8619.7.ca...@meh
