On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 16:11:00 +0100, Simon Huggins wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 04:07:45PM +0100, David
Dorward
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 07:37:43 -0700 (PDT), Sergio
> Basurto
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 1. The latest version is enough stable to install
> in a
> > > producti
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 16:11:00 +0100, Simon Huggins wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 04:07:45PM +0100, David
Dorward
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 07:37:43 -0700 (PDT), Sergio
> Basurto
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 1. The latest version is enough stable to install
> in a
> > > producti
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 16:11:00 +0100, Simon Huggins wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 04:07:45PM +0100, David
Dorward
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 07:37:43 -0700 (PDT), Sergio
> Basurto
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 1. The latest version is enough stable to install
> in a
> > > producti
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 04:07:45PM +0100, David Dorward wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 07:37:43 -0700 (PDT), Sergio Basurto
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 1. The latest version is enough stable to install in a
> > production server?, right now I have woody on it.
> The "latest" version of XFCE is m
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 07:37:43 -0700 (PDT), Sergio Basurto
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. The latest version is enough stable to install in a
> production server?, right now I have woody on it.
The "latest" version of XFCE is marked as beta and I find it runs fine
on my Sarge laptop. The latest sta
5 matches
Mail list logo