Re: A case study of a new user turned off debian
On 06 Nov 2003 01:06:25 -0500, Greg Stark <firstname.lastname@example.org> posted to
> Personally I'm of the opinion that stable is useless. It certainly
> has no use for me. Perhaps if I ran a production server on debian I
> might think otherwise but I rather doubt it. When I had production
> servers they all ran 2.4 and needed the latest stable releases of
> anything important like database, mail, web server services.
> If I ran production servers on debian today I would probably pick
> an arbitrary date off snapshot.debian.org and declare that my
> "stable". If I had security problems I would pick a date recent
> enough to have the security fixes, test it, and declare it
> It wouldn't be guaranteed to be bug-free, but then nothing is.
> Stable has tons of minor bugs that no upstream maintainer would
> listen to because they were fixed aeons ago anyways, or more likely
> are no longer relevant in current sources.
Sounds more like a case of "stable plus backports of the important
pieces". Now if only somebody were telling me where to find "stable"
backports for Woody of the packages I need ... (Probably I'm too much
of a skeptic for not believing that a random hit in the search engine
at apt-get.org is what I should be using.)
/* era */
formail -s procmail <http://www.iki.fi/era/spam/ >http://www.euro.cauce.org/
cat | more | cat<http://www.iki.fi/era/unix/award.html>http://www.debian.org/