|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | I ran across an interesting analogy on Questions today that may work its way into this article:
| |
| − | Jerry McAllister wrote:
| |
| − | Yah, stable is better than alpha or the bleeding edge current
| |
| − | development image, but still in need of significant care.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Think of how they report someone's health condition after a trauma.
| |
| − | Stable seems to mean they can finally move the patient from the
| |
| − | operating room to a bed with monitors and walk down and get lunch.
| |
| − | But, the patient is still a long way from being able to drive home.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Just so, a FreeBSD version spends a long time in stable before
| |
| − | making it to RELEASE.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I'm not sure I like refering to FBSD as a trauma patient... but the analogy certainly makes the "STABLE IS NOT THE MOST STABLE RELEASE" memorable.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I may also want to explicitly mention that stable as a development release is in contrast to Debian, which is likely one of the mental stumbling blocks for many people with this concept.
| |
| | --[[User:Joe|Joe]] 11:58, 4 Jan 2006 (EST) | | --[[User:Joe|Joe]] 11:58, 4 Jan 2006 (EST) |
