Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?
On Friday 06 March 2015 15:22:21 Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Brian wrote:
> > On Fri 06 Mar 2015 at 09:27:23 -0800, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> >> On Fri, 06 Mar 2015, Ken Heard wrote:
> >>> Thanks everybody for the collected wisdom. So for me now Jessie
> >>> RC1 is it.
> >>
> >> FYI: Do daily updates using dist-upgrade, instead of upgrade (or
> >> the equivalent with aptitude, if you use that). Things change
> >> quickly and sometimes majorly on the path to Stable. You'll want
> >> to get ALL those changes -- minor and major. "Upgrade" won't do
> >> that. This is recommended by Debian. Once Jessie is Stable, revert
> >> to "upgrade" for the most part.
> >
> > I agree with everything but the final sentence. Stable is unlikely
> > to pull in any new packages but if it does you will likely need
> > them. In other words, 'dist-upgrade' should be the norm for stable.
>
> Somehow, anything that needs daily updates, or upgrades, does not meet
> any definition of "stable" that I'm familiar with.
>
> Miles Fidelman
Poor choice of thinking IMO Miles.
Debian has zero control over what the black hat might do yet today,
requiring a package or 2 to be updated in order to block the jerks. That
is not a Debian (or use name of favorite os here) problem, its a black
hat problem.
Me, I'm in favor of the old west's "Wanted, $25,000 reward for so and so,
D.O.A." posters, bring him in, in any condition to collect your reward.
But who funds the reward? Good question that...
OTOH, those jerks keep pushing us to ever more secure software, so they
are in some sense "improving the breed too."
Cheers, Gene Heskett
--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>
Reply to: