On Thu, 2004-03-25 at 20:47, Adam McKenna wrote: > On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 01:42:50AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > I like Debian for both technical and political reasons, but it's simply > > impossible today to recommend to anyone to use Debian stable on > > production systems. > > I don't think this is 100% true. At the company I work for, we still use > woody on most of our servers (and we still even have potato installed on > some). Same here. Actually we have a woody server without problems, and people are happy with it. Most of them, recognizes that woody is really stable and can be handled easily without lost efficiency, security and stability. > > Stable is *definitely* not usable on desktop systems. The problem is that > pretty much every Debian developer runs unstable on his/her desktop. So not > having a current stable release doesn't really affect them. I Agree. > > Perhaps Debian needs to change its product offering. We could have a server > distribution (with a long release cycle) and a desktop distribution (with a > short release cycle). Yes, just like every other major Linux vendor. No, > this is not rocket science and I'm 100% sure I'm not the first one with this > idea. So why aren't we doing it? Many users think that 'stable' is too old, and they willn't use it, and when you tell they about 'unstable' they got scared (No! That will break my system, no way!). So, many users use other linux distributions. -- Midway upon the journey of our life, I found myself within a forest dark, For the straightforward pathway had been lost.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part