[ale] Distro Reply

[Jim Popovitch]

On Mon, 2005-01-03 at 15:33 -0500, Jonathan Rickman wrote:
> 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?

Lots of people still do.  Note, The complaint was about Debian's kernel,
not a whole OS.

> old != stable 

This is just as true:  new != 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.

The current Debian "Stable" stablized during the kernel 2.2 time period.
Since then only minor updates and backports have been added.  RHEL
stabilized during the kernel 2.4 time period.  Thus my comment about
Debian being ahead of RH in moving to a slower release cycle.

-Jim P.