Originally posted by SnapIT
Sounds like an excuse to me... "well, at least they are bettar than xxx" is an excuse...
You sound educated enough to me to dispense with that word game. Did I say 'at least'? Didn't think so (neither did I mention 'good enough'). I stated testable fact, the majority of ATI / nVidia users I've heard from concur that the nVidia drivers have been more stable over the years. (no I didn't pay a subsidiary company of nVidia to conduct a survey, its just what I hear from people)
You argue against my own experience with the drivers as if you've tested the stability of my machine yourself. You should know better.
While arguing that the stable branch is more stable than the devel branch you state clearly that there is no stable branch for linux. Therefore you cannot even compare them. If the branch doesn't exist for linux how do you know it would be stable on linux?
This is pointless in the end, but you beg the question. What DOES make the difference between a /stable branch and a /devel branch? It is not an empirical measurement of quality for all situations on all supported hardware or anything of that sort. The difference between two branches of development is almost always in the intention of the developers not to change what works (whether very stably or barely working) already by adding extensive changes, i.e. new features. A stable branch is a codebase that is not changing, not a compiled product that does not crash.
Simply lacking a branched source does not imply anything, of its own accord, about the stability of the product. Again, this is statement of fact, not an 'excuse' of any kind.