I really like the *idea* of Debian, but I find that their unstable branch is a bit TOO unstable, and their stable branch is WAY too stable. They should have a "sorta-stable" branch.... On Thu, 2001-12-13 at 11:46, Paul Harris wrote: > Because it's ... umm ... stable. :) OK, that's a bit lame because 2.4 seems to have proven itself by now, but Debian is deliberately conservative, and therefore dependable (Kind of like Strom Thurmond? - not necesarily what you want, but at least you know what it is. The conservative bit translates directly). > > Having said that it's easy to upgrade to Woody, which is up to 2.4.16 last time I checked, and is running just fine on my box (except for all the stuff I don't know how to do yet, but that's down to me not it!) > > Finally Woody is due to become the new stable soon - maybe Feb? > > Cheers, Paul > -- > > Second, I've been looking at Debian as another distro to install on a system. However, the one thing holding me back from it for the most part is the stable version is still at 2.2.19 kernel it looks like. Can someone explain > why Debian is so far behind in their stable release compared to all the other distros? > > Thanks, > Shawn > > > _______________________________________________ > Twin Cities Linux Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota > http://www.mn-linux.org > tclug-list at mn-linux.org > https://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list >