Re: When stability is pointless
Thanks for your comments.
2008/11/5 Douglas A. Tutty <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> Or, are you saying that you are trying to implement a psad recipe from
> the internet that doesn't apply to the version of psad supplied in
Essentially correct. But not just any old set of psad instructions:
the instructions provided on the psad website and in the developer's
book on Linux firewalls. In other words, pretty much the most
comprehensive set of instructions I could find.
> For all Ubuntu is based on Debian, I don't think it follows debian
> policy. The policy manual says, basically and among other things, that
> installing a package should result in that package working
> out-of-the-box in some fashion only needing tweaking by the sysadmin.
Define "working" (or "tweaking"). My experience with some packages in
Etch suggest that Debian sometimes has problems like this too.
> I've never used psad but I would be very surprised if the problem you
> experienced were to happen were you running Debian Stable.
You may be right. Perhaps I should go back to Debian Stable. But one
of the reasons I switched to Ubuntu was to minimise the gap between a
package being deprecated by its developer and deprecated by its
maintainer, in an effort to avoid precisely the sort of problem I
outlined in my post.
> Since Ubuntu is based not on Debian Stable but on (I think) Unstable, I
> don't know how one can consider any Ubuntu release to be stable.
Ubuntu has LTS (Long-Term Support) releases, which roughly translate to Stable.
However, I think this is perhaps missing the point.