Re: Lenny vs. Etch + Backports
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Michael C wrote:
> After returning to Linux last year as my main desktop OS, I've been
> wanting to migrate to Debian. However, put off by the prospect of having
> to use backported security fixes on officially retired development
> branches such as Thunderbird/Icedove 1.5 (for up to two years!), I'd far
> rather be using either Testing or Backports.
> Given that in any case Backports.org currently only seems to draw on
> Lenny, and that these days, security vulnerabilities fixed in Sid are
> swiftly brought over into Testing, what are the specific advantages of
> using Etch + Backports?
I am not sure if I understand correctly: What are your objections
against debian's way of security fixes?
The advantage of etch is that it is 'stable'. If you want/need more
recent software and like to discover bugs and help to get them sorted
out, you could use 'testing' or unstable. Those also require more
upgrading and more work on your part.
The advantage of backports.org is that it provides more recent versions
of some software packages. If you want a 'stable' system, but require a
more recent version of one or a few packages take them from backports.
If icedove and firefox/iceweasel are your only concern, I would stick to
stable (+ backports, but only if that it is really important to you).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----