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

Re: unstable is "unstable"; stable is "outdated"

> On Fri, 2002-02-01 at 01:42, Jason Lim wrote:
> > We have production boxes running unstable with no problem. Needed to
> > unstable because only unstable had some new software, unavailable in
> > stable. Its a pity stable gets so outdated all the time as compared to
> > other distros like Redhat and Caldera (stable still on 2.2 kernel),
> > thats a topic for a separate discussion.
> This is really a shame.  It's my biggest complaint with Debian by far.
> The tools work very well, but the release cycle is such that you can't
> use a "stable" revision of the distribution and have modern packages
> available.

I agree. What I would like to know is how other Linux distros like Redhat
(only mentioning Redhat because that is what many of our cusomters
request, and nearly everyone knows it) can have pretty new "stable"
releases? No release is going to be totally bug-free, and I think just
about everyone (business and personal) know and accept this. Perhaps
people are willing to trade in a few more bugs to have a far more
up-to-date system?

I know Debian likes to have "stable" REALLY VERY stable... but perhaps it
is SO stable that is too outdated to be used in a production environment.
I mean, I think Debian is the only Linux distro still shipping with a 2.2
kernel; everyone else has gone ahead with 2.4 for quite a long time now.

I pretty much work with Linux exclusively in a business environment... so
from a business of view (and I hate to say this... but...) I like Redhat
more than Debian, in that a default install of Redhat comes with a 2.4
kernel, ext3, and lots of up-to-date tools, whereas with Debian I have to
recompile a new kernel, download the various new tools to support the new
kernel, etc... and as we all know, jumping from "stable" to "unstable" is
problem-prone and doesn't worth flawlessly every time.

> I can't imagine this issue is being ignored, but is it discussed on a
> policy list, probably?  It seems like FreeBSD's -RELEASE, -STABLE,
> -CURRENT scheme works much better than what Debian has.  I've never seen
> big political arguments on this mailing list, but I always hear that
> Debian as an organization is often too burdened with internal bickering
> and politics to move forward with big changes.  Is that the case here?
> Just curious, not trying to start a flame war.

I also do not believe in "flame wars", which are not at all constructive.
I'd be very willing to engage in some constructive discussion with anyone,
with ideas that are "doable" rather than "ideals". I think Debian MAY be
too weighed down in ideals, rather than focusing on getting a good
opensource linux distro "out there". Of course, there are probably many
factors affecting Debian and making it slow to move, but surely something
can be done to improve the situation?

I know that as a company, we could donate a bit of money (with the economy
as it is, not much though), but from what I can see, money isn't really
where the problem lies... it is somewhere else.

I don't know what I can personally do to help policy changes or anything
like that, but I'd be willing to give my perspective and ideas on the
matter, if that helps at all. Perhaps other business users out there would
also like to give Debian a bit more input, so Debian becomes a viable
business distro that isn't so out-of-date?

Reply to: