On Friday 10 June 2005 13:37, Guillaume TESSIER was heard to say: > Thanks Curt!
You're very welcome. > I guess many users choose sarge testing cause woody was pretty > outdated. Yep. And they were warned, many times in many forums, that when Sarge went "stable" then "testing" would be a nightmare for months, at least, with updating and, well, TESTING! That's kind of the point. > However, i'm not a purist and thought i'd just stick with > sarge when i get stable - at least for the first years. That is a wise course of action, which I would recommend to anyone who wants to track the "testing" branch. Personally, I use either stable or unstable depending on application. I don't like the way that testing goes to the wall (like right now), nor that things can be broken in testing for quite a while as problems are thrashed out. No promises of stability in testing, again that is kind of the point. > However some of my friends are quiet upset. They should file wish-list bugs against apt, asking that the name be tracked. At least, it will spur discussion amongst the developers. > So, yes, by default, it could be great that the installer put the > real name of the version cause for certain users, the "slide" > looked more like a grind. No kidding! When I first read the descriptions of Debian (which was my first Linux distribution too!), I tried "testing". It didn't work, same as testing isn't working right now, and someone gave me the same advice I've given. Go stable at first, upgrade as needed when needed. > G Curt- -- September 11th, 2001 The proudest day for gun control and central planning advocates in American history -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
