Re: Newbieish question
On Sun, Jul 15, 2001 at 12:37:21PM -0700, Brian Ballsun-Stanton wrote:
> 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....
"Unstable" is named so because the distribution itself changes
rapidly, not because it's unstable in the Windows 95 sense of the
word. Occasionally nasty bugs slip into a new package, but they are
fixed quite quickly. For the most part, it provides a reliable
computing environment.
--
Brian Nelson <nelson@bignachos.com>
Reply to: