On Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 10:39:30PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> If you weren't following unstable on critical machines, maybe that
> wouldn't happen. Then again, I guess as a developer, we are all oblidged
> to waste cpu and bandwidth (both of which we have plenty of, of course,
> there seems to be no end to our resources....yeah, right) just so you can
> fix your ill maintained systems quickly.
you seem to be completely unable to understand one fundamental and
very simple idea. here it is spelt out for you in words of very few
debian 'unstable' is perfectly usable for production servers, using it
for such does not require any more caution about upgrades than using
debian 'stable' or debian 'frozen'.
as far as usage and stability goes, debian 'unstable' is just as usable
and just as reliable (actually, more so) and almost inherently more
secure than stable.
i'm sure you will fail to understand this point (again), but i feel it
is necessary to state - if only so that i can say I Told You So at some
(alas, inevitable) time in the future.
contrary to your ludicrous assertion above, given that the risks are
about the same, and that using unstable gives you more packages and more
up-to-date packages and faster security updates, it is not at all hard
to prove that using 'stable' on production servers is negligent and a
sign of an ill-maintained system.
> Great, sign me up for whatever self-serving position you have.
no need to. you habitually demonstrate more than enough of a blinkered,
my-way-is-the-only-way, self-serving attitude for any dozen normal
have a nice day.