If ONLY there was some way to make testing get security updates faster... then I am almost sure "testing" would become the choice for many people running servers and such. It almost sounds like Redhat 7.2 (compared side to side).
Options are: 1) "unstable" pros: Very up to date, cons: Occasion big bug that can do damage user: Someone who knows there way around Linux pretty well and likes to say,"I use unstable 'cause I'm so cool!" 2) "testing" pros: Pretty up to date, very stable cons: May have the latest-greatest version of an app a week or two after your buddy using "unstable". Last to get security upgrades. user: Someone who actually uses their computer to get work done and is less worried about being the latest greatest cool guy. Someone who laughs at their co-working trying to figure out why init keeps bombing after his last "unstable" upgrade. 3) "stable" pros: Rock stable, quicker security updates than testing. cons: old user: critical server. Most of these characterization are user standpoint. If I had a server that was super critical, I'd use stable (or *BSD). The two servers I have don't have a huge load and it's not a big deal if they go down (not to sound like a huge power user, 'cause I'm talking about a home network and a minor server at work). I have testing on them. In short, if you're a user, it doesn't make sense to use stable. Use testing or unstable and you're system will be as "up to date", if not more, as any distro. If you're running a server, just use testing, unless security is a big issue. Then use stable. Or use testing and keep a watch on the linux security pages, and manually apply the newest patches when they come out. IMHO, there is a level for any use inside the various debian trees. The biggest problem from a PR standpoint for debian is in the names. Feel free to disagree with any point I made, 'cause I'm not as good as I sound. On 2/2/02 at 6:39 AM Jason Lim wrote: >On 2/1/02 at 4:25 PM Tim Quinlan wrote: > >>> kernel, etc... and as we all know, jumping from "stable" to "unstable" >>is >>> problem-prone and doesn't worth flawlessly every time. >> >>Why jump all the way to unstable, why not use testing? Testing is >>usually stable enough for most applications plus the various software >>packages are pretty up to date. >> >> >>In my experience unstable is pretty damn stable as well. I upgraded a >couple of boxen from stable to unstable a little over a >year ago and >haven't been bit by any of the big bugs. I just check the mailing lists >and debian planet to see if anything big >has popped up before doing an >apt-get update && apt-get upgrade. Obviously these aren't servers. > >In my experience as well. As I said in a previous post, i've heard that >testing is the last to get security updates, which is not acceptable if >you're running servers. > > >>I think the only problem with debian is the naming. Changing nothing but >the name from "unstable" to "cutting edge" or >> something and there wouldn't be close to the outcry about how 'behind' >debian is. IMHO. > >Well, there more or less needs to be more frequent "stable" releases... >something along the lines of Redhat's quick releases. Okay... Redhat >again.. i know i know... but you've got to admit they've got the release >aspect of their distro pretty good. They are business people over there, >and they know how frequent business users like to have updates, and when >critical updates should be released. > >I'm just wondering if it is even POSSIBLE to follow the frequent release >schedule that Redhat follows, or if it is not possible because most/all of >the developers for Debian are volunteers and won't "work" to such a tight >schedule. If we can find and identify the problems not allowing up-to-date >releases, perhaps a solution can be found? -- Lang Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half of the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. -- Thomas Jefferson -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
