Ethan Benson wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 11:01:10AM +0200, Johan Segernäs wrote: > > And no, i wouldn't use woody on a firewall, it's to many packet-updates all > > the time, takes > > to much time to keep track of everything imho. > > woody also does not get security updates, in fact it can take a very > long time for security related updates to get into woody since its > almost entirely managed by a script. unstable simply gets new > versions of a package installed immediatly so any security fixes are > in unstable as soon as they are packaged. that does NOT guarentee they > will make it into woody any time soon though. > > the `testing' distribution (now woody) is the least secure branch you > can run.
...this is a thing where i can't agree, in the last 6 month, all security-fixes were as soon implemented as in potato (i have both, so i'd compared). e.g. bind probs, man-db probs for mention a few. but i have also the security-link in my sources.list even under woody, maybe this is the reason why it works. regards joris -- SBF Gruppe - http://www.sbf.de Steinhof 51 - D-40699 Erkrath Tel: +49 211 20 99 51 0 Fax: +49 211 20 99 51 88
