On 2006-10-12, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> posted something concerning:
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 19:15:17 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 07:06:36 -0500,
>> Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 05:27:03 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>> ReviewLinux.Com: Will Ubuntu 6.10 Beta finally make me think about switching?
>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>>| In conclusion, I am so used to using KDE and the GNOME desktop
>>>>| may take me a while to get used too. I do know one thing, the Ubuntu
>>>>| 6.10 Beta update manager works flawlessly and that alone may be enough to
>>>>| convince me to switch.
>>> So, in other words, the 6.06 update manager does NOT work flawlessly.
> Are you really that dense? God, why is it that Linux advocates seem to
> have ZERO ability to infer anything on their own? And when they do, it's
> something completely impossible to infer from the comments?
We can. But for an example of something that's nearly impossible to
infer from what was stated, read on. I'll even reply to it.
> The point is, he'd switch to 6.06 *TODAY* if it's update manager worked
> flawlessly, not a beta of 6.10. Why else would he not move to a stable
> version and go with an unstable one?
Why would that necessarily be true?
You use(d) Vista beta, right? Howzabout IE7? Why wouldn't you stick
with "stable" if you could? Because the "stable" versions weren't?*
I wasn't around then, but I'm betting you used the "betas" (aka
"alphas") of most MS products for several years now. True? False? No
answer (my guess)?
* No need to answer. We already know it.
"[Microsoft's] products just aren't engineered for security."
-- Brian Valentine
Senior Vice President, Windows Development