[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[ale] Distro Reply

Subject: [ale] Distro Reply
From: jrickman at gmail.com (Jonathan Rickman)
Date: Mon Jan 3 15:40:14 2005
In-reply-to: <1104781281.2410.6.camel@blue>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <1104781281.2410.6.camel@blue>

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 14:41:21 -0500, Jim Popovitch <jimpop at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Stable Debian's focus is stability, not freshness. (NOTE: Debian was
> doing this long before RHEL started doing the same)

So if we demand the ultimate in stability on windows systems, should
we all run NT4?

old != stable 

Personally, I find the 2.4 series to be significantly more stable than
the 2.2 series in just about every conceivable situation. Last time I
checked, RHEL was up to 2.4.9, so I'm afraid I don't understand that
comparison.

--
Jonathan

Follow-Ups:
- [ale] Distro Reply
  - From: jimpop at yahoo.com (Jim Popovitch)

References:
- [ale] Distro Reply
  - From: jpheale at LearnLink.Emory.Edu (John P. Healey)
- [ale] Distro Reply
  - From: esoteric at 3times25.net (Geoffrey)
- [ale] Distro Reply
  - From: jimpop at yahoo.com (Jim Popovitch)

Prev by Date: [ale] Distro Reply
Next by Date: [ale] Distro Reply
Previous by thread: [ale] Distro Reply
Next by thread: [ale] Distro Reply
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread