View Full Version : Bleeding Edge and Stable

February 27th, 2009, 05:48 AM
Little on the unknown side of the difference between "Bleeding Edge" and "Stable" distributions.

There are many common distributions, for this example, we will use Fedora and Ubuntu. Fedora is what they call a "Bleeding Edge" distribution, while others call Ubuntu a "Stable" distribution because of it's release cycle.

From my understanding:
Fedora updates software and puts new software in the repositorys when the software, has reached the "Stable" status, or it's new "Stable" software, ex a new program was just finished being developed.

Ubuntu, on the other hand, makes users wait, unless otherwise installed manually, for it to update it's software to new versions and new features, even if it's marked a "Stable" version.

Sounds ridiculous to me, if the software is "Stable" then why the hell do we have to wait 6 Months for Ubuntu to update, instead of upgrading, why can't we just update our software to "Stable" versions over time?

CJ Master
February 27th, 2009, 07:52 AM
Obviously if a program, let's take Oo3 is considered "stable", then the developers think it's stable. But of course, with upgrading, quirks can arise and even possibly break the software. (yes, I know how rare this is.)

For the 'stable' distro's, basically people are willing to sacrafise a little functionality for always being there when needed.