On 2004-06-21, Kent West penned: > Michael Satterwhite wrote: > >>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >> >>On Monday 21 June 2004 12:03, Monique Y. Mudama wrote: >> >> >>>If you're trying to avoid any downtime or difficulty whatsoever, run >>>stable and live with the age of the packages. >>> >>> >> >>Not exactly promoting Debian, are we? Especially in a Linux world >>where there are so MANY choices. >> >>Others here, however, are doing a much better job. >> >> > I'm not sure where Monique went wrong. I'd have to agree with her > assessment. Others in the thread have already praised the usability of > unstable; Monique is just reiterating that if he really wants stable, > he'll need to stick with stable and the older packages there. It might > have sounded a bit short, but from my past experience with her, I > don't think that was intended; it's just the nature of email.
Sounds about right to me. I didn't mean to be short; in fact, while Michael snipped the largest portion of my post, if you look at the whole paragraph in its entirety, I don't think that sentence sounds nearly as harsh. Wow, that was a lot of commas. The more I read that bit about choices, the less I get it. Shouldn't we celebrate choice? If someone prefers Gentoo or SUSE or even, for some reason I couldn't comprehend, RedHat, why is that a bad thing? I adore debian, but I don't take offense when people choose other distributions. It's all open-source; it all comes together to make every distribution stronger. Personally, I think that debian is the system people choose after they've been burned by the rest. What seems like cruftiness to the novice is found to be sublime by the more experienced admin. -- monique -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
