Re: don't upgrade! libpam problem!
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 10:19:03AM -0400, Alan Shutko wrote:
> It's entertaining to listen to different camps talk about unstable.
> When someone complains that the software in stable is too old, camp A
> comes out and says "Run unstable. It's really very stable, and more
> stable than other distributions." When unstable breaks, camp B comes
> out and says something like the above....
there's actually no contradiction between what your two camps are saying.
unstable really is very stable, and really is more stable than even the
*release* versions of some other distributions (e.g. i've been running
unstable on all my production servers and workstations since 1995 and i
can only recall a few instances where a serious/dangerous bug took me
more than 10 or 20 minutes to fix)
OTOH, when "unstable" breaks it can be a complete disaster. if you're
not prepared for that possibility and don't have the knowledge and
skills required to recover from it, then don't take the risk - stick
with stable or testing instead.
craig
--
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
Fabricati Diem, PVNC.
-- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch
Reply to: