On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 11:45:37PM -0500, Brian White wrote: > > And if you want an up to date workstation just run testing/unstable and > > you are way ahead of any other dist. > > Good in theory, bad in practice. Works great in practice. Everyone who uses Linux here use Debian Unstable. > So now, my servers run unstable because they need newer software. But > guess what... There is no security tracking. If a vulnerability is > found, there are no notices to tell me about it. That is a huge problem. But that will not change with short release cycles. Either you always keep up to date, or the security department have to take care of more than one release. > I don't have the time to re-certify all of the packages on all of my servers > every week. Once every 6 months I could do. In the intermediate time, I'd > love to be able to install bug fixes without having to worry about > compatibility. I just said that a 1 year release cycle is okay. I do not think too long release cycles are good. Potato are outdated, yes. I do run woody on my servers too. What I said was that release cycles about a year is okay. That way you run software that has been tested for awhile, you do not need to update all the time (which most users does not need to, since when a server works it'll probably just sit there and do it's work). 4 month release cycles are too short imo. 2 years is too long. I'm just trying to say that I do not want to see a release every 4-6 months. I have apparently not been clear enough. Let's just drop this discussion, and come to the conclusion that potato is outdated, shall we? -- Peter Mathiasson | GPG Fingerprint: E-Mail: peter(at)mathiasson(dot)nu | A9A7 F8F6 9821 F415 B066 Web : http://www.mathiasson.nu | 77F1 7FF5 C2E6 7BF2 F228
Attachment:
pgp1N13YU1qZe.pgp
Description: PGP signature