Re: Debian LTS?
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 10:45 PM, <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Yes. Are you considering Total Cost of Ownership, comparing to the option of
> Best regards.
So Debian should have rolling releases, LTS with that name, and
network manager by default, and as there are no bugs to work on, and
Debian as upstream can't be improved, lets keep Debian "developers"
backporting security patches _where and when possible_ during 5 years
for the whole main archive for every arch, while others work in
frondesks, pythonization, etc as main line.
mmm archs... Or in adition with rollings, LTS, and default network
managers, debian should get just x86 and amd64 then?
What's next? telepathic man pages to be free as in blob?
If I think in many programs I use to use (libc, SSL,iceweasel, nginx,
etc, etc, etc) and its history in 5 years, and this thing about debian
LTSs.... and I just discard the idea, maybe I'm wrong and Debian is
plenty of resources and excellence to do that job with all posible
> On 05/10/11 21:02, Brivaldo Junior wrote:
>>>> IIRC, the current release schedule has stable releases 2 years apart, so
>>>> total maintenance time is 2 years (stable) + 1 year (oldstable) = 3 years.
>>> And that's 2 years less for LTS ... especially in bigger Setup's
>>> LTS-Support is mandatory so there (because there is no Debian LTS's)
>>> Debian cannot be used due to the lack of Support. Instead - Redhat
>>> or Ubuntu or any other distribution with LTS-Support is used there.
>> Maybe for you... in one bigger setup here... we use Debian and plan
>> updates every 2/3 years without problems.
>> Brivaldo Junior
> Alexandre Cotta Godinho
> Telem.: (+351) 910 873 189
> AIM : acottag
> GTalk: email@example.com
> MSN : firstname.lastname@example.org