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

Re: [nathan@dnase.hpw.pri.bms.com (Nathan O. Siemers)] Humble Request Re: New release over due

I am not sure that potato got pushed back due to trying to do too much -- I
think it got pushed back because the boot floppies aren't ready. From slink
to potato involves moving to kernel 2.2 (2.4 will be out soon, and potato
will look antiquated once again..) and incremental upgrades to the little

I am not sure it was trying to do too much; 2.2 needed to happen, and the
bootfloppies just don' work on all systems. I would love to help the
bootfloppies group, but I just don't have the time amidst my programming
labs.. hehe. :)

I am not sure if I agree with you or disagree with you. I moved to potato
from slink, and felt very good about it. The closest my system came to being
unstable was a few days when netscape really sucked. Since then, and I have
kept up-to-date usually every day or two, my system has been fairly stable.
I would consider running unstable on a production server; it seems that
nice. :)

Have fun :)

On Sat, Dec 04, 1999 at 06:21:08PM -0500, Nathan O. Siemers wrote:
> Chris Waters <xtifr@dsp.net> writes:
> > Newest features and stablity are usually incompatible goals.  Also,
> > most businesses find upgrades both expensive and time-consuming.  A
> > release a year is FAR TOO OFTEN from one perspective, and nowhere near
> > often enough from another.  Where to find middle ground?
> > 
> > For everyone whining that Debian doesn't release often enough, there
> > are three people switching their businesses to Debian because it's
> > solid and reliable and stable and doesn't change all the time, unlike
> > most other distros.  I think we're doing ok.
> 	I agree in principle with some of the above.  Debian systems
> 	are stable as we all know. However, releasing more frequent
> 	updates with more modest agendas does not force any system
> 	administrator to upgrade more often - it only adds flexibility
> 	for them to add new features when necessary.  Also, the less
> 	you change at once in the overall debian architecture
> 	(changing package structures, package methodology, etc), the
> 	easier debugging the organic whole will be.
> 	My original point was that potato has gotten delayed beyond
> 	it's (my?) anticipated release because developers tried to do
> 	*too much* in a single release.  It was a call to modesty, not
> 	a call from a feature hog.  My job involves running a
> 	computational infrastructure group within a fortune 50
> 	company.  We have around 60 linux systems here, including two
> 	compute farms.  Where is my middle ground? I cannot be on the
> 	bleeding edge, but slink is looking *very* old at the moment.
> 	Our group is research oriented, so we are less conservative
> 	than many, but I do represent enterprise computing to some
> 	extent :)
> 	Someday these at work machines will be running debian
> 	gnu/linux, like my 3 systems at home.
> 	nathan
> > 
> > If you really need the latest and greatest, use potato now; we all do.
> > (Every Debian developer is pretty much forced to run unstable, which
> > ensures a certain level of stability.)
> -- 
> N a t h a n   O .  S i e m e r s
> Bioinformatics
> Division of Applied Genomics
> Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharmaceutical Research Institute
> Hopewell Building 3B, P.O. Box 5400, Princeton, NJ 08543-5400
> 609 818-6568
> siemersn@bms.com
> --  
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Seth Arnold | http://www.willamette.edu/~sarnold/
Hate spam? See http://maps.vix.com/rbl/ for help
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into
your ~/.signature to help me spread!

Reply to: