On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 6:55 AM, Anne Wilson <cannewilson at googlemail.com> wrote: > On Tuesday 27 January 2009 20:05:16 Anne Wilson wrote: >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Rex Dieter <rdieter at math.unl.edu> >> Date: 2009/1/27 >> Subject: Re: what is stable? >> To: KDE on Fedora discussion <fedora-kde at lists.fedoraproject.org> >> .... > > A distribution is stable if it has only packages that have been tried and > tested over a very long period, which inevitably means that it will not have > the latest and greatest, and intends making only the minimum of changes to > stay secure. > > Anne > > > _______________________________________________ > fedora-kde mailing list > fedora-kde at lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kde > > I'm reproducing the above quote from another thread because it is a very good definition Using it I think we could accurately define Fedora as a distribution which seek to ship the latest stable software as quickly as possible. That is the reason I use it. There are many stable distros out there: Ubuntu, OpenSUSE, debian, CentOS, etc, however I don't know of another distro that fills Fedora's niche (I have seen cases where Fedora repos were more up-to-date than Gentoo ebuilds). I am not trying to say "If you don't like it choose another distro", but that fedora fills a unique niche. KDE 4 (the update which spawned this discussion) presented a unique challenge and I believe that the KDE devs followed the direction dictated by fedora's purpose. Was KDE 4.x a little rough? Absolutely. I briefly switched to GNOME, but switched back as KDE updates improved the experience. Was the decision to ship it correct? It was consistent with fedora's charter (To those who say that openSUSE ships both I would say that OpenSUSE has always been KDE centric and hence has greater resources that Fedora which has been historically GNOME-centric). Mark Bidewell
