Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
If almost everyone you know is a desktop user,
Most everyone I know is an engineer :)
then I can see your point. But no-one sane running production server systems is going to run sid.
Well, I'd say no-one sane is running an unqualified/untested distribution. It doesn't matter when you get it from.
Sid aka unstable on a production system means either updating
your production system every few days to keep up ("sorry customer,
we switched to php 6.8 with postgres 17, rewrite your apps and
fix your sql" or "sorry boss, we switched to php 6.8 with postgres
17, the forced rewrite of the production system means the plant will be
down for 3 weeks")
Yes, all these would clearly be stupid things to do :)
I don't blindly deploy distributions to clients in any case; be it commercially released ones or snapshots of other once. (well they are all really snapshots anyway).
you don't upgrade unless needed for security reasons and at that point you have the same problem but then for 300 packages at the same time.
security is another thing altogether assessed normally via other considerations and needs.
That's why you need a stable supported release. No surprises but still security patches.
I wasn't trying to suggest that the releases should be unstable or insecure. But these terms are relative and come at a cost don't they?
Maybe it's just better to have "sarge" "sid", etc named releases with more complicated descriptions of the intent of the releases like Adrian Bunk wrote so well a few emails back?
I also think that running debian unstable-only will mean debian
will get even less focused.
Ok, I'm not knowledgeable enough to understand all the issues. I just wanted to send encouraging words and feedback to the developers. debian (sid specifically) has, and I hope continues to be, spectacularly well done over the last 5 years. I really think it's the best distribution out there.
Why update your packages, there's not going to be a release ever anyway.
> If we're not at that point already.
I'm not sure I'm fully understanding what I sense is frustration with my comments/feedback/suggestions. I'm really just trying to complement everyone involved; mention that sarge and sid are really grand; and pass back the one bad think is that new users get worried when they hear "testing" and "unstable". These are clearly not accurate; I can confidently say that sarge & sid are as "untested" and "unstable" as mandrake or fedora over the last 5 years.
I merely am suggesting that the bar has been raised so high; the standard and expectations set at such a lofty level that the general public might be better served by a more detailed explanation of the releases and the dangers. Again, like the text Adrian wrote a few emails back I think is perfect and might be better than calling them simply "stable", "testing" and "unstable".
Warm regards, Jeff
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
