[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Newbieish question

* Brian Ballsun-Stanton (brian@pax.ath.cx) [010715 19:13]:
> 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...) 

If anybody has already mentioned this in this thread I missed it (and
it bears repeating anyway):

'unstable' refers NOT to the uptime-stability of the system. They call
it unstable because the distribution *changes* frequently, NOT because
the system crashes frequently.

FWIW, I've been running unstable for as long as I can remember without
any problems. Sid is *at least* as stable as any other distribution
out there on the market today.

When using Debian, you'll have to get used to the higher standards.
What we call unstable could be considered Gibraltar to anyone in the
same zip code as a win2k machine.


Attachment: pgpjuwdBlOBBC.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: