Many times when developers refer to stable/unstable they mean the specification to the interface. So in saying that 2.3.0 is stable because it is based on the stable 2.2.8 is ignorant of the terminology. 2.3.0 is unstable because the interface is scheduled to change.
Slashdot Mirror
It was PC Anywhere that did her in.
Many times when developers refer to stable/unstable they mean the specification to the interface. So in saying that 2.3.0 is stable because it is based on the stable 2.2.8 is ignorant of the terminology. 2.3.0 is unstable because the interface is scheduled to change.
I think Microsoft wants to put the big play on the idea that Linux tuning documentation and technical support is inferior to Microsoft's.
And that type of spin fairly documents Microsoft's style of marketting. They definetly don't play nice up there in Redmond.
i've been faithfully using it for a few months now, and was very surprised when it went 1.0. it still has a very alpha feel to it.
probably going to have to mentally append 'alpha' to any gnome release for the next 6 months.
on a slow day (friday) we got 1,667,218 hits. running linux (300mhz PII, load average 1.0)
:-) just the vast right wing conspiracy.
and its not even a linux site.. nor tech.
www.freerepublic.com
guess we're no one though