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?
