Linux
Welcome to c/linux!
Welcome to our thriving Linux community! Whether you're a seasoned Linux enthusiast or just starting your journey, we're excited to have you here. Explore, learn, and collaborate with like-minded individuals who share a passion for open-source software and the endless possibilities it offers. Together, let's dive into the world of Linux and embrace the power of freedom, customization, and innovation. Enjoy your stay and feel free to join the vibrant discussions that await you!
Rules:
-
Stay on topic: Posts and discussions should be related to Linux, open source software, and related technologies.
-
Be respectful: Treat fellow community members with respect and courtesy.
-
Quality over quantity: Share informative and thought-provoking content.
-
No spam or self-promotion: Avoid excessive self-promotion or spamming.
-
No NSFW adult content
-
Follow general lemmy guidelines.
view the rest of the comments
A lot of people don't know this though. They think it is the "won't fall over" type. They hear "use debian over ubuntu, because it's more stable" or "use debian for servers, because it's more stable" and think it means "You want uptime, so you dont want something crashing". So when they see a bug, it is concerning to them. A distro focused on not falling over must super care about reducing crashes, and don't realize the exact opposite is actually true. The bug was fixed a long time ago, but you don't get it because "don't change" is more important than "don't crash".
If the bug is in a popular package (ie, a super common screensaver) in a very popular distro (and a lot of people have chosen the distro because they think it has less bugs than others), I can imagine the maintainer getting fed up with the bug reports for a bug that was already fixed.
Most people I've seen on Lemmy understands that "stable" means "unchanging"... But every person I've talked to outside of lemmy, thinks it means "less bugs". So clearly it's a very big misunderstanding (Which is basically confirmed by the fact that xscreensaver gets so many invalid bug reports that they felt necessary to do this.)