On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 09:44:10PM -0400, Max Hyre wrote: > The discussion of `stable' vs. `etch' vs. `lenny' > vs. ... got me to thinking. Is there any reason to offer > `stable' as an entry in sources.list? Its drawback seems to > be: > > o Every so often `stable' whacks you with about > seventeen million updates, with the chance that you'll > be left dead in the water. As others have mentioned: This only happens if your admin blindly installs all the updates available. > Using the name (`sarge', e.g.) has the drawback that: > > o Eventually a named distro will drop off the end of the > world, and get no more security updates. [snip unstable] > So, my modest suggestion is that `stable' as a name > should be eradicated. Roughly no downside, only closer > adherence to the principle of least astonishment. I believe that this "astonishment" comes from a basic misunderstanding. - Referencing any of stable/testing/unstable/sid means "follow the debian releases" - Referencing any of hamm/woody/sarge/etch means "Stick with $codename and hope for security updates" There is a need to be able to express both - different sysadmins, different skills, different preferences etc etc. Whether the default install should say "stable" or "etch" is a different matter. Don't be surprised if the current lenny (or any future RC) says "testing" though... > [Runs for blast shelter...] You may be assimilated. Resistance will provide greater knowledge. -- Karl E. Jorgensen karl@jorgensen.org.uk http://www.jorgensen.org.uk/ karl@jorgensen.com http://karl.jorgensen.com ==== Today's fortune: Nullum magnum ingenium sine mixtura dementiae fuit. [There is no great genius without some touch of madness.] -- Seneca
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature