| Article: |
What's So Java About Sun's Linux Desktop? | |
| Subject: | Debian, older!=stable | |
| Date: | 2004-10-07 18:46:21 | |
| From: | adrianus | |
|
Response to: Debian, older!=stable
|
||
|
"older does not mean more stable." To be more precise to my opinion "older does not always mean more stable" but older program has more chances and potential to be more stable because most bug should already be found and hopefully fixed. But that depends on the time and effort the maintainer has. For example to my experience firefox 0.9.x is more stable than firefox 1.0PR. I have no experience with Debian (heard many good things about it) but I notice that Redhat Enterprise (which supposedly more stable) is not using newer version of packages like say Fedora Core. I think that was the reason why Sun choose the older version. Admittedly newer program has new feature that older program don't have. Gaim 0.70 maybe already can be called stable, but Yahoo's decision to alter its protocol to make other client difficult to connect to it force user of gaim to get newer versions.
|
||
Showing messages 1 through 1 of 1.





I guess there's two uses for the word stable. Stable as in unchanging. Stable as in less likely for a program to crash. The former doesn't mean you release a distro with old software, it means you release a distro and maintain it (security updates) for several years, perhaps with a longer update cycle. And its the former that enterprises want. And as I already stated a program being older doesn't magically mean its going to crash less, certainly when talking about minor revisions (like the difference between 0.7 and 1.0 of Gaim) newer is better.