Re: is it a bad idea to use unstable on a server ?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Felix C. Stegerman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been using unstable on my desktop for several years now, and I'm
> very happy with it. I don't mind the occasional breakage, and
> actually think fixing bugs can be fun ;-). What I am planning to do
> now, is to set up my Mac Mini as a "collaboration" server.
>
> I want to use:
> * apache2 + twiki (discussions + documentation)
> * mysql
> * ssh
> * subversion
>
> This server will be connected to the internet, but is meant to be used
> only by me and other people working on projects with me. Since I am
> comfortable working with unstable, and prefer things to work the same
> (as in have the same versions of most packages) across both my desktop
> and server, I was wondering whether it would be such a bad idea to use
> unstable. I think I can live with occasional breakage, but I don't
> want to compromise on security.
>
> So it comes down to:
> * Is it a bad idea to use unstable on a production server when it
> comes to security?
> * If so, would you recommend using testing, or stable?
> * And does anyone with experience running unstable on production
> servers know of any other caveats I should be aware of?
If you want a stable "Debian", but need something more up-to-date,
Ubuntu 2005.10 might be what you want.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFEd4q2S9HxQb37XmcRAs4CAJ46MpfQDou9/tWvGJrK/yJzARs5/wCfYoyK
XSVPn6MQtza1Y8YvEhETooA=
=vtou
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: