Re: Why AS

David Mihm (
Thu, 12 Aug 1999 16:03:08 -0500 (CDT)

On Thu, 12 Aug 1999, Kurt Fitzner wrote:

>I think it would be a wise move to slap a 'stable' sticker on a version
>(any version) of Afterstep that has GNOME support.
>Any relateively recent 1.7.x version of Afterstep is a helluva (!) lot more
>stable than some of the experimental stuff Linus/Alan have stuffed in the
>kernal and called 'stable' in the 2.2.x kernel series (2.2.8 was a disaster).
>In light of this, the minor problems in 1.7.X couldn't possibly cause too
>much grief, and the benifets of getting on GNOME's list of
>compliant/partially compiant window managers would be a great boost, I'd

	A general statement on this front.  Gnome is not at a stable
release, Window Maker is not at a stable release, etc etc.  There are many
things that are not at a point of stable release, and people use them all
the time.  If a sys admin is mandated to run a stable simply because it's
stable, then s/he can surely fool the fool who thinks just because it has
a "stable" sticker on it, makes it stable.  This is all semantics, and
while is good discourse, certainly proves no point. :)

	[ this is in no way directed at the author who is cited here, but
simply a statemnet in lines with his ]
| d a v i d  @  m i h m                         reality.sys corrupt! |
| davemann  @                        reboot universe(y,n)? |
| webmaster @                               ICQ:906859 |
| ftpmaster @       |
           E4 90 15 ED E5 9F 18 8A B0 CC FF 68 61 36 4A 6F