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

Re: Incoming

On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 01:22:12PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> 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
> syllables:
> 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.

Sorry but your argument is flawed in that stable changes rarely, so there
is little to go wrong and require "quick updates" to fix problematic
things (like a new perl, a new libc, a new kernel....).

Also, I (and I am sure that many others would argue this aswell) will
assert that security updates are taken more seriously and acted upon more
quickly in stable, than in unstable. Remember that unstable security bugs
do not even warrant security advisories, since problems are "inherent" to
the distribution by definition.

Just because you feel it is ok to run unstable on production servers, and
think that certain things should be made available to you because of it
(incoming mirrors) does not make it the general consensus. I notice that in
all of your arguments (from this one, to our little "don't fork frozen"
threads, and then to the "other" flame fest) you always talk about how
everything affects you, and never really relate to what others think (even
in the face of their comments).

> > 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
> people.

Yeah...that's it, I'm for getting rid of incoming mirrors to save cpu and
bandwidth on one of our resources...that's so selfish of me. God forbid I
ever do something giving...like worry about releases and making frozen
stable...or worse yet, making sure our mailing lists are accessible to
everyone, even if it means getting a few spam mails every so often...that
would be horrid...

/  Ben Collins  --  ...on that fantastic voyage...  --  Debian GNU/Linux   \
`     bcollins@debian.org  --  bcollins@openldap.org  --  bmc@visi.net     '

Reply to: