Re: Which is the most stable of Debian releases?
On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 11:16:34AM +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> On 5/24/06, Roberto C. Sanchez <roberto@familiasanchez.net> wrote:
> >Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> >> By the way is there a distro out there considered as stable as
> >> Debian's Stable. This is not a question of which is a better distro
> >> (too many variables involved there), but just a question of, "which
> >> distro breaks less?"
> >>
> >
> >Again, that is not really a fair or accurate question. I would assert
> >that distros specifically targeted at certain segments of the market
> >would do better in that respect. If you have a distro that is targeted
> >at firewall applications, it won't be affected by things like the
> >problems that occur with X, Gnome, and KDE. OTOH, anything target at
> >the desktop/workstation market would include a great many more packages
> >and probably have more security issues. Even those statements are very
> >broad and I'm sure you could find exceptions.
>
> I should have specified that I meant general purpose OSes...
What do you mean by 'general purpose OS'? Do you mean a desktop distro
that can also do firewalling and has an MTA, etc? Do you mean a
firewall/router distro that can also do X? Do you a file/mail server
that can act as a desktop/router/firewall? Each OS I'm aware of has
certain things they prioritize. Look at what's in Debian Important,
Standard, Optional, and Extra. Debian devels invest a lot of time into
each field, and Debian can be made to do (almost) anything--but the
distinctions aren't there for no reason. Look at what Ubuntu installs
by default: GNOME, OO.o, the GIMP, no MTA, no console-mode mail
apps--it's also clear what their priorities are.
--
Christopher Nelson -- chris@cavein.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
QOTD: "What do you mean, you had the dog fixed? Just what made you
think he was broken!"
Reply to: