> > Large hosting companies not having made their scripts etc. good enough > > to ride out upgrades well should have nothing to do with any decision. > > I don't think the problem here is with "Large hosting companies not > having made their scripts etc. good enough". I don't think it has > anything to do with size, or the type of company, or even the activity. > I believe that the short life cycles of our stable releases is a problem > for *MANY* companies. Dreamhost is the tree hiding the forest.
I can't see how it can be such a problem if they have well written scripts. Run it on a new system, update the script or files to cater for any fallout, deploy and larger companies deploy to more systems so it is less taxing or more systems are deployed for the same effort. Do they need to get some kind of long drawn out certification like out of date Android images. OTOH towards the end of a debian stable life cycle (ignoring extended security support) you already find software that is problematic to run atleast for desktops due to requiring newer QT to compile etc., meaning it's often easier to use a chroot of Ubuntu etc. to run the latest kdevelop or ffmpeg with webm support (I admit I haven't delved into the backports yet as I only knew they existed recently, but would still be wary of any packages with far reaching dependencies). -- _______________________________________________________________________ 'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface' (Doug McIlroy) _______________________________________________________________________ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/575000.76357...@smtp104.mail.ir2.yahoo.com
