-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Felix C. Stegerman wrote: > Hi, > > I've been using unstable on my desktop for several years now, and I'm > very happy with it. I don't mind the occasional breakage, and > actually think fixing bugs can be fun ;-). What I am planning to do > now, is to set up my Mac Mini as a "collaboration" server. > > I want to use: > * apache2 + twiki (discussions + documentation) > * mysql > * ssh > * subversion > > This server will be connected to the internet, but is meant to be used > only by me and other people working on projects with me. Since I am > comfortable working with unstable, and prefer things to work the same > (as in have the same versions of most packages) across both my desktop > and server, I was wondering whether it would be such a bad idea to use > unstable. I think I can live with occasional breakage, but I don't > want to compromise on security. > > So it comes down to: > * Is it a bad idea to use unstable on a production server when it > comes to security? > * If so, would you recommend using testing, or stable? > * And does anyone with experience running unstable on production > servers know of any other caveats I should be aware of?
If you want a stable "Debian", but need something more up-to-date, Ubuntu 2005.10 might be what you want. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEd4q2S9HxQb37XmcRAs4CAJ46MpfQDou9/tWvGJrK/yJzARs5/wCfYoyK XSVPn6MQtza1Y8YvEhETooA= =vtou -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
