On Sat 07 Mar 2015 at 09:14:31 -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote: > Well, yes and no. > -- Yes: Typical desktop operating systems (e.g., Windows, Mac OS), > and applications, "call home" periodically to check for updates,
Debian doesn't work like that unless it is configured to do so. > but, > -- No: > --- in enterprise environments, that's typically disabled - with > updates distributed internally on a less frequent basis > --- this is particularly true in server and system environments, > that are under maintenance -- one doesn't want updates to the O/S to > break application software (as it quite often does) Breakage in Debian in this regard does not appear to be common. Do you have an example? > Beyond that, pretty much any systems administrator will tell you > that "stable" is a pretty well understood concept. It's the point > at which: > -- most bugs, not caught during product testing, have been caught and fixed > -- enough security scrubbing has been done that the code has been > relatively well hardened Sounds like Debian stable. > There will always be a few bugs, and there's always the new security > exploit around the corner - but with any halfway decent coding and > testing practices, those should be few and far between - to the > point that an update/upgrade should rarely be necessary. Sounds like Debian stable. I hope we are not going to quibble about how many months there are in "months at a time". > To me, a "stable" system - and mind you, I'm talking about servers > here - is one that doesn't need updating or upgrading for months at > a time, if at all; except in the cases of: > -- deploying new application software that requires a new o/s featurea Sounds like Debian stable. > -- responding to a CERT alert about a newly discovered vulnerability Sounds like Debian stable. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
