On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 02:50:59PM -0500, Bob Tanner wrote: > I'd rather have a rapid release cycle, followed by a flurry of bug fixes then a > stagnate distribution. I agree, but there needs to be some explicit statement of what's a rapid release and what's been tested and fixed. Something along the lines of Debian's stable/unstable designations. Then there's the question of how broadly 'release early, release often' applies. Should the early and potentially buggy releases be pushed out to the masses or just made available for download by those who know enough to watch freshmeat? While I can't answer that from a philosophical standpoint, I have to say that, on a practical level, the latter is preferable. The people who just install what their distro gives them and don't know (or care) to go out and get the latest leading-edge stuff off the web or an ftp site are also the people who are most likely to complain (and will complain the loudest) about anything that doesn't work. Also, what happens to 6.x now? Will there ever be a Red Hat 6.3 or will they now be supporting only the 7.x series? If 6.x is left for dead, how is that any different than MS forcing everyone to upgrade to their latest bugware by dropping support for the previous version? (Note the _if_. I am not saying that RH is doing that. I am asking; I honestly don't know the answer. I don't follow RH and I'm not trying to start a distro holy war.) -- "Two words: Windows survives." - Craig Mundie, Microsoft senior strategist "So does syphillis. Good thing we have penicillin." - Matthew Alton Geek Code 3.1: GCS d- s+: a- C++ UL++$ P+>+++ L+++>++++ E- W--(++) N+ o+ !K w---$ O M- V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP t 5++ X+ R++ tv b+ DI++++ D G e* h+ r++ y+ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: tclug-list-unsubscribe at mn-linux.org For additional commands, e-mail: tclug-list-help at mn-linux.org