Re: Kernel 2.4 SOS
Ethan Benson wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 11:01:10AM +0200, Johan Segernäs wrote:
> > And no, i wouldn't use woody on a firewall, it's to many packet-updates all
> > the time, takes
> > to much time to keep track of everything imho.
>
> woody also does not get security updates, in fact it can take a very
> long time for security related updates to get into woody since its
> almost entirely managed by a script. unstable simply gets new
> versions of a package installed immediatly so any security fixes are
> in unstable as soon as they are packaged. that does NOT guarentee they
> will make it into woody any time soon though.
>
> the `testing' distribution (now woody) is the least secure branch you
> can run.
...this is a thing where i can't agree, in the last 6 month, all
security-fixes were as soon implemented as in potato (i have both, so
i'd compared). e.g. bind probs, man-db probs for mention a few. but i
have also the security-link in my sources.list even under woody, maybe
this is the reason why it works.
regards
joris
--
SBF Gruppe - http://www.sbf.de
Steinhof 51 - D-40699 Erkrath
Tel: +49 211 20 99 51 0
Fax: +49 211 20 99 51 88
Reply to: