Re: Newbieish question
Thank you, Its not so much upgrading to testing, or to 2.4... I'm just
wondering if 2.4 will improve stablitity in unstable. The only thing I
have to go to unstable for is samba-tng (for my 2k clients). And I want to
minimize my risk of downtime.
Is woody more stable than unstable? ::sigh:: I'm confused. By unstable,
lets see, I mean: 1) the Debian version. 2)my system. 3) my mind
:). Anyways, I'm very heartened to hear that the non official
"stable" versions are quite stable. People go out for blood when servers
go down, and since we're trying to prove ourselves (in this
environment) I'd hate to have people with pitchforks looking to drive a
stake through my heart....
Anyways, thank you again, this is very helpful.
-Brian
P.s. Does anyone know any good things to sacrifice to the god of
computing? He got really angry (for some reason) on my birthday, (the
14th) ::chuckles::
On Mon, 16 Jul 2001, David Purton wrote:
> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 11:57:17 +0930 (CST)
> From: David Purton <dcpurton@chariot.net.au>
> To: Brian Ballsun-Stanton <brian@pax.ath.cx>
> Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Newbieish question
>
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2001, Brian Ballsun-Stanton wrote:
>
> >
> > Unfortuantly, we'll still be using w2k clients. Now, not having my head
> > completly buried in my ::cough:: I knew that samba could provide file
> > sharing. Little did I know that samba-tng would provide good w2k access.
> >
> > This is my dilemma: to run samba-tng, I have to upgrade to "unstable." My
> > mandate explictly states that downtime is *BAD*, very, very, very,
> > bad. How risky is running unstable? What shouldn't I do? Should I upgrade
> > to 2.4.6? (I'm running a home box as a testbed for this, so I'll be warned
> > slightly in advance, but...)
> >
> > I'd love any advice or assistance.
>
> just to clarify by "unstable" do you mean the debian
> "unstable" distribution or a 2.4 kernel?
>
> if the former read below - others will be better able to advise on the
> stability of the 2.4 kernels (but I've had no probs so far)
>
> It's not necessary to upgrade to unstable just to run a 2.4 kernel -
> hunt in the archives of this list - and I'm sure there is a reference on
> how to get a 2.4 kernel running with potato.
>
> Another possibilty is to go halfway and just upgrade to woody
> (testing) - If been running it for ages on my home box and nothing much
> has gone wrong at all - but be aware that security updates take longer
> to find there way into woody than the stable or unstable distros
>
> >
> > If anyone wants to help, or discuss this over lunch, I live in LA, and
> > I'll be going to rochester, NY, for 3 days next week. I'd love to actually
> > discuss this with someone who knows what they're talking about.
> >
>
> sorry - I live in Adelaide, South Australia and there is some doubt that
> I know what I'm talking about :)
>
> cheers
>
> dc
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Today people in droves hurry up past Heumoz to Villars
> on the road to the ski hills, so they can rush down them
> as fast as possible, so they can hurry up again in order
> to rush down again. In a way this is funny,...
>
> Francis A Schaeffer
>
> David Purton
>
> http://www.chariot.net.au/~dcpurton/
> dcpurton@chariot.net.au
>
Reply to: