From: "Adam Flinton" 

hummm...it depends. If what **you** want is stable then it is. 2 examples:

The Sky+ box & the Tivo.

People ain't gonna do apt-get on their sky+ box.

Adam

"Paul Ranson"  wrote in message
news:3dc82384{at}w3.nls.net...
> 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