Re: Wish: Unfreeze Woody and start anew
On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 03:00:35AM -0700, Rob Starling wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 10:35:08AM +0100, Thomas Thurman wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Marcel Hicking wrote:
> > > So I fear that all godd arguments for Debian will be simple
> > > overun by the faster and seemingly more reliable relase cycle of
> > > other distribs. Sight.
> >
> > For release cycles, "faster" and "more reliable" tend to pull in
> > opposite directions. (The sooner you release, the less time you've
> > had to check it all fits together.)
>
> yes, but i think it's clear at this point that debian's "stable"
> would almost be better named "stale". sure, you and i are happy to
> run unstable and deal with the occasional borken package, but most
> institutions refuse to use debian b/c stable is too old, and
> unastable is too iffy. maybe it's partly in the naming, but they
> really are scared by unstable.
Then don't use unstable, Sid shouldn't play with production machines
anyway.
Woody is frozen, and I have that running just fine on a few production
machines. The label "frozen" certainly doesn't raise semantic red
flags for me when running on a production server, and Woody has been
more stable than most people's mature released software for a while
now.
For most of my production servers I just run Potato, though, since
perfect reliability is far more important than newer software for me.
The only package I wish was newer on stable is openssh, everything
else is either happily running the potato package, or is hand compiled
(and would need to be hand compiled anyway no matter what version or
distribution I was running).
-Gleef
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-curiosa-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: