This one time, at band camp, Filipus Klutiero said: > > > >This one time, at band camp, Filipus Klutiero said: > >> RHEL and derivatives: 7 years > > > >This is longer than Debian. > > > >> openSUSE: 2 years > >> Ubuntu: a bit more complex. > >> 1.5 in general > >> LTS releases: 3 on desktop, 5 on server > > > >These are all shorter, except for Ubuntu server LTS. > > > No, support for Ubuntu LTS in general is longer. Ubuntu LTS is supported > for 3 years on the desktop, which is more than Debian 3.1. And less than 3.0. > >So your complaint is that, even though Debian's security team does > >actually rank in the top half of the examples you put forward (and I'm > >not even going to discuss the fact that the 2 that do longer security > >support have paid people doing it, not volunteers), they have nothing > >to be proud of? > No. Besides Debian not ranking in the top half, Luk Claes changed the > discussion to the total duration of security support. The bug is about > the sentence about oldstable security support. > > > And denigrating the work they do and telling them they > >have nothing to be proud of is good why? > It isn't good, which is why I don't do it. I guess I'm finished with this discussion then. Trying to counter things that are just absolutely made up is a waste of time. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | ,''`. Stephen Gran | | : :' : sgran@debian.org | | `. `' Debian user, admin, and developer | | `- http://www.debian.org | -----------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature