Re: Woody Progress
On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 02:04:08PM -0800, Erik Steffl wrote:
> if your server is not a production server (mission critical, whatever
> that means to you), I think you can run unstable with no big worries. I
> am running unstable and there were VERY few problems, I'd say less then
> with stable releases of some other distros.
I disagree. When I setup a workstation and I choose stable, the advantage
that I get is setup-once-and-forget. Well, except for the occasional
apt-get upgrade from security.debian.org, but that's precisely one of the
conveniences of stable. You know that your system is primarily constant,
and you only have to check security.d.o once in a while to make sure that
you're relatively secure.
With unstable however, security fixes might come out, and you'll miss these
if you don't apt-get upgrade to the latest woody regularly. Doing this
however is also risky, as you tend to experience the bugs that do come out
in the development. If you don't apt-get upgrade, you risk having a
terribly insecure system.
Don't get me wrong, I run woody at home and enjoy it immensely. At work I
run potato however, as I'm not running linux for the sake of linux, but
actually to get real work done.
charl p. botha | computer graphics and cad/cam
http://cpbotha.net/ | http://www.cg.its.tudelft.nl/