[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: bugs + rant + constructive criticism (long)

On Tue, Jan 02, 2001 at 07:45:53PM -0800, Jim Lynch wrote:

> But... if you are using woody for -production-, I'm sorry again, but
> that's an idiot move... and you know that if you have spent -any- time
> at all on OPN, much less enough to get familiar enough to help others
> on channel.
> And if you're talking about -sid-... rotflmao :)
> Now being serious: I hope you NEVER advise people on #debian to use
> anything not released for production. If I see it, you get devoiced

WTF for? you want to censor someone because they express opinions which
you don't like?

you might disagree, but unstable is just as safe to use on production
systems as stable - especially for people who have a clue and have
sufficient experience with debian.

the main difference between 'stable' and 'unstable' is that stable has
old versions with old bugs and old security holes while unstable has new
versions with new bugs and new security holes. take your pick.

i have no hesitation in recommending that people run unstable if they
need the new features/bugfixes and if they have enough of a clue to cope
with occasional packaging problems or are willing to learn how (it's not
very hard - just become familiar with dpkg and apt).

(if people don't have a clue, then i don't recommend that they run
either stable or unstable. i recommend that they either acquire one in a
hurry or go find a more appropriate career or hobby)

as long as you test upgrades on an unimportant machine first there's
little chance of a problem.

i've been running *all* of my production servers on debian unstable for
years (since 1995) with no major problems. they don't all get upgraded
every day, but most get upgraded at least once every two weeks.

i use unstable for building gateway boxes and workstations too...in
fact, every debian box i build is debian unstable - so far, i've
personally built over 200 of them and guided/supervised the building of
many more. i have every intention of building more 'unstable' boxes as i
need them.

i'm sure that most debian developers have similar experiences with
unstable. it may be too much trouble for the completely clueless but
it's fine for anyone who's not afraid of getting their hands dirty.

the new 'testing' distribution (sid) should be even better - nearly
all the benefits of 'unstable' but tested to at least install properly
without error.


craig sanders

Reply to: