From: "Paul Ranson" 

The point is stability. Linux isn't anything like feature complete yet so
stability isn't an option.

Paul

"Adam Flinton"  wrote in message
news:3dc81cb8{at}w3.nls.net...
> Nope. The average user can sign up to something like a "Windows
update" in
> just the same way. Some dists will prefer to go latest & greatest & some
> will go for stability (i.e. security patches only).
>
> e.g the Corp version of Red Hat works with 18 month release cycles.
>
> The point is choice. With Windows whether you don't want any upgrades for
2
> years or every 6 months you have no choice in the matter. With Linux per
se
> you can look at say Debian if you want stability vs say Mandrake if you
want
> latest & greatest. What is more if the dist decides on an 18 month release
> cycle they still gain all the advantages of the other distribs releasing &
> building code etc.
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> "David N. Barnett"  wrote in message
> news:gs4gsu0rf0lla0h30f703l9blha6g960ko{at}4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 5 Nov 2002 15:53:12 -0000, "Adam Flinton"
> >  wrote in message
:
> >
> > | Distrib A does well on this but poorly on this so...all the other
> distribs
> > | nick the good bits & work on the poor bits etc.etc. &
then release so
> that
> > | their distrib B does well on this but poorly on this so.....all the
> other
> > | distribs nick the good bits & work on the poor bits
etc.etc. & then
> release
> > | so that their distrib C does well on this but poorly on this
so.....all
> the
> > | other distribs nick the good bits & work on the poor bits
etc.etc. &
> then
> > | release so that their distrib D does well on this but poorly on this
> > | so.....all the other distribs nick the good bits & work on the poor
bits
> > | etc.etc. & then release so that their distrib E does well on this but
> poorly
> > | on this so.....all the other distribs nick the good bits &
work on the
> poor
> > | bits etc.etc. & then release so that their distrib F does
well on this
> but
> > | poorly on this so.....all the other distribs nick the good bits
& work
> on
> > | the poor bits etc.etc. & then release so that their distrib G does
well
> on
> > | this but poorly on this so.....all the other distribs nick the good
bits
> &
> > | work on the poor bits etc.etc. & then release so that their distrib H
> does
> > | well on this but poorly on this so.....all the other distribs nick the
> good
> > | bits & work on the poor bits etc.etc. & then release so
that their
> distrib I
> > | does well on this but poorly on this so.....all the other distribs
nick
> the
> > | good bits & work on the poor bits etc.etc. & then release so that
their
> > | distrib A does well on this but poorly on this so.....
> >
> > This is what will continue to scare the average punter away from Linux
> > and toward the known-quantity monopoly OS.
> >
> > --dnb
> >
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4