Re: Jessie sufficiently stable for general use?
On Fri, 06 Mar 2015, 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.
As far a Debian is concerned, you have the incorrect definition of
"stable." With Debin "Stable" means "unchanging," without serious
bugs, not less prone to crash. It's confusing, I agree. I wish a
different term had been chosen.
Security and bug fixes are a part of every OS and app. I "update" my
system database daily, that is I check daily for any "fixes." Some do
so weekly. In any case, this may require "upgrading," i.e. something
new is installed replacing something old that needs the fix, about
every week or two. Sometimes, it can be one tiny library; other times
it can be a dozen system files, including the kernel.
B
Reply to: