help me understand the diff between "cutting edge" and "bleeding edge"
GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
help me understand the diff between "cutting edge" and "bleeding edge"
I generally hear Linux users describe technology or software as "bleeding edge," not "cutting edge." What's the difference between the phrases supposed to be? I vaguely have the impression that "bleeding" is even more out on the edge than cutting, because bleeding is the effect of cutting and an effect happens after a cause. Also, "cutting edge" is more a common colloquialism used everywhere.
"Cutting edge" means the most advanced stuff that's like ... really good. "Bleeding edge" means even more the most advanced stuff, but like ... maybe a little too advanced with painful kinks to be worked out yet.
For example, the latest GPU card is cutting edge technology. But the beta version of software 'x' is on the bleeding edge as it may cause GPFs, lock-ups, etc.... The Fedora distro used be called a 'bleeding edge' OS. And the LTS versions like Centos/Scientific were stable. Current Fedora seems much more stable than it used to be.
For example, the latest GPU card is cutting edge technology. But the beta version of software 'x' is on the bleeding edge as it may cause GPFs, lock-ups, etc.... The Fedora distro used be called a 'bleeding edge' OS. And the LTS versions like Centos/Scientific were stable. Current Fedora seems much more stable than it used to be.
Mmhmm, this is what I thought. You can say accurately that Debian Sid is bleeding-edge, but probably that Debian Testing is only cutting edge.
I always heard "cutting edge" is essentially running just ahead of the blade of "latest and greatest" while "bleeding edge" is risking a sharp stumble.
For example, software developers might be encouraged to download and test a not-yet-released version of a system ... specifically to be "beta testers" of that system, looking for the last round of bugs. That's "bleeding edge." And the developers, knowing this, will "deliberately push the envelope." Poking in the weeds at the very outer edges, looking for another land mine.
Because, everyone knows what otherwise would happen. You finally release the thing, and, even before you've finished your first glass of champagne at the "release party," the report comes in that "the very first 'actual user' who installed it" just smashed into a wall. So it goes ...
Last edited by sundialsvcs; 05-09-2024 at 10:56 AM.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.