Re: Debian IS for the enterprise (Was: Debian Enterprise?)
Quoting Wouter Verhelst <wouter@grep.be>:
> And we're talking about desktops here. Not servers, where enterprises
> usually take a while longer than on their desktop to migrate to
> different systems.
I don't think the differences between Potato and Woody constitutes the
title 'different system', but ok. I agree in most part that an upgrade
shouldn't be done lightly.
It's just that for the last year I've had to upgrade a lot of customer
machines to Unstable and/or Testing because of the shear 'oldness' of
the system. LDAP, Kerberos, most mail server (except QMail, thank good
- must mean something :) and most notably Samba etc etc have had so
many new features and improved performance/security that it was a
requirement to upgrade.
But a distribution that takes security, stability, 'upgradability'
(don't seem to be a word according to ispell, but I guess I get my
point through :) and most of all is very slim can get updates and
upgrades through the door quicker than a _HUGE_ distribution.
I wish there WAS a way to combine the need for many packages and
the things I _require_ from a server OS, but we've tried a few,
and none of them have worked. The current system with packages
slowly migrating from unstable to stable via testing don't work
either. So get your thinking hat on and solve the problem if you're
so hot for lots of packages. I have thought about this on and of
for years, and still haven't had a good idea...
--
nuclear Waco, Texas subway critical ammonium bomb genetic Soviet pits
Khaddafi counter-intelligence terrorist president kibo iodine
[See http://www.aclu.org/echelonwatch/index.html for more about this]
Reply to: