[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: New stable version after Sarge

On Tue, 2005-01-04 at 14:58 -0500, roberto@familiasanchez.net wrote:
> Quoting Thomas Jollans <thomas@jollans.com>:
> > Well, you could argue that debian branches are not perfectly named but:
> > "stable" is best if you need *absolute* failsafety for critical jobs
> > "testing" is best if you want a stable system with new(ish) software
> > "unstable" is for everybody who needs the newest software, like me.
> > 
> > honestly, I have never had problems (yet) with using sid for day-to-day 
> > stuff. If I needed something more production-ready, I'd use testing 
> > because you have (almost) garantee that the software will work and you 
> > will have security updates, too. (But not in the same quality as 
> > "stable", as I understand it. If I needed to run a always-needed 
> > very-important server on the internet, I would use "stable".
> > 
> I would strongly caution against using Sarge for a production system
> until there is security team support.  See this message I posted to d-u
> when someone pointed out that they were running sarge on some servers:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2004/12/msg03846.html

I also commented in the thread, if you recall. I stated I run
SID/experimental for certain things, Testing with updates from SID if
need be... etc.

The thing is, that unless you *really* know how and what you are doing
with pinning and preferences and the mighty good reasons for doing them,
you should stick with Stable for servers.

People that think "ahhh, what could happen" or "Bah, I'm only one IP
addr" or even the penultimate "Dude, I am running SID with Experimental
Preferred.... that is SOOO 31337!" Are just asking for their machine to
be ummm... cracked/whacked or put out of its misery.
greg, greg@gregfolkert.net

The technology that is
Stronger, better, faster: Linux

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: