Re: Is oldstable security support duration something to be proud of?
Lee Glidewell <lee.glidewell@gmail.com> writes:
> On Monday 10 March 2008 07:54:32 pm Rich Healey wrote:
>> For what it's worth, I'm proud of you guys.
>>
>> I do volunteer work for a much smaller project, and it's hard but
>> satisfying.
>
> +1.
>
> Given that Debian is maintained by volunteers, and that it has one of
> the largest repositories among the GNU/Linux distros, I think that
> the maintainers have earned whatever pride they feel, and probably
> more.
Count me in too. There are lots of reasons to be proud of Debian and
long-term support is definitely one of them.
I am pretty sure the other distributions have things to be proud of too,
but I'm afraid none of them are able to compete with Debian when it
comes to long-term support. If we consider Redhat: The oldest release
they support (according to http://www.redhat.com/security/updates/errata/ )
is RHEL 2.1, released May 17, 2002. Any RH system installed before this
date is not supported, given this quote from the release notes
(
https://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-AS-2.1-Manual/release-notes/RELEASE-NOTES ):
"- Support for upgrading to Red Hat Linux Advanced Server from a previous
version of Red Hat Linux is not included with this product."
I hope most people reading this list know that Debian has provided a
supported upgrade path since long before May 17, 2002.
Personally, I am proud of the choice I made in 2001, installing Debian
potato on a number of servers instead of the vendor-recommended RH 7.1.
This has ensured that these servers still have security support without
ever having to be reinstalled.
Bjørn
--
You sound like a real weakling
Reply to: