On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 09:46:13AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 01:22:12PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > 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'.
> Like during the Perl transition period, or when a recent libstdc++
> broke apt, or when su stopped being able to su, or when ....
> Need I continue?
i repeat: "[using unstable] does not require any more caution about
upgrades than [using stable]"
upgrading to whatever the latest stable releases is requires just
as much caution/paranoia as upgrading to whatever is in the latest
unstable. anyone who trusts the latest debian stable release on their
critical/production servers without testing it on other machines first
deserves whatever they get.
if you have a clue and you are cautious then both stable and unstable
if you don't have a clue or you are not cautious, then neither are.