Re: security in testing
Keegan Quinn wrote:
> Funny how myself and every admin I know have only very minor issues with
> running unstable. What, pray tell, makes it such an 'obvious' non-option
> for end users?
How about constantly repeated statements to the effect?
"So you did not even look at the release announcement, and yet
you run unstable. You are luck that all that happened was that you had extra
copies of mail. People had had much worse happen to them running unstable,"
-- Manoj Srivastava, linux.debian.bugs.dist, 1999-07-02
"Newbies are constantly told "don't run unstable" by all clued users. The
ones that persist are either very dumb, and fail. Or very intelligent, and
succeed after mastering the learning curve."
-- Stephen R. Gore, debian-devel 2000-06-05
"Don't run unstable - it's normal that unstable sometimes breaks."
-- Adrian Bunk, muc.lists.debian.user, 2001-02-16
"The real moral: if you don't have a good chance of figuring out what's
wrong on your own, and fixing, backing out of, or jury-rigging around it
without outside help... don't run unstable."
-- Craig Dickson, muc.lists.debian.user, 2002-11-14
"there are risks associated with running unstable, if you're not willing
or not able to deal with those risks then DON'T RUN UNSTABLE."
-- Craig Sanders, debian-devel 2002-12-13
The list can be made much longer, but I think you get the idea. End users are
discouraged from running unstable, and for good reasons.
> I do like the sound of this, but saying it has a place and actually making
> it happen are very different things. There seems to be a lot of the former,
> and little of the latter
That tired old argument doesn't bite on me since I have already volunteered to
set up a testing-i386 release. :-)
--
Björn
Reply to: