On Wed, 24 Dec 2008, Larry Stotler wrote:-
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 2:36 PM, John Andersen <jsamyth@gmail.com> wrote:
Lets face it, 10 was a bust until 10.2 and 10.3.
I thought 10.0 was a good release. 10.1 sucked, 10.2 was decent, 10.3 was mediocre and 11.0 was much better than 10.3.
Not quite the same as me. I thought 10.0 was okay. Apart from the lousy package management of 10.1, that was also okay. 10.2 was an improvement on 10.1, especially in the area of package management. 10.3 was an improvement over 10.2. 11.0, for the most part, as also an improvement over 10.3, but does have some issues that can be annoying.
Nobody I know ever ran 11.0.
Same here with 10.3 - nobody uses it. It's either 10.2 or 11.0
I do. I started with the initial alpha testing it all the way through to the GM, and have continued to use it to run my web server. As for what other versions I'm running, see .sig. Regards, David Bolt -- Team Acorn: http://www.distributed.net/ OGR-NG @ ~100Mnodes RC5-72 @ ~1Mkeys/s | openSUSE 10.3 32b | openSUSE 11.0 32b | openSUSE 10.2 64b | openSUSE 10.3 64b | openSUSE 11.0 64b | TOS 4.02 | openSUSE 10.3 PPC | RISC OS 3.6 | RISC OS 3.11 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org