<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Collins Richey <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:crichey@gmail.com">crichey@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Shawn Perry <<a href="mailto:redmop924@comcast.net">redmop924@comcast.net</a>> wrote:<br>
> Well, ubuntu is just debian unstable with a few tweaks.<br>
><br>
<br>
</div>Well, almost. They start with unstable, then cram stuff from<br>
experimental and who knows where else into the mix.<br>
<div class="im"><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div> </div><div>I was somewhat aware of that fact, but not as much as I thought I was.</div><div><br></div><div>Although I have a growing dislike for K/Ubuntu and their methods. It has never seemed unstable to me, which says a lot for K/Ubuntu. In my experience, it just works for the day to day computing needs. I would still recommend it for many people for that fact alone.</div>
<div><br></div><div>It seems everyones definition of unstable is different. Which is why I ask for clarification on whether distros are a "stable unstable"?</div><div><br></div><div>Mike Irons</div><div><br></div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div></div>