> Coming from a corporate environment I hardly feel that stable is ancient.
Also coming from a corporate environment, and one specifically focused on web technologies, I disagree. We have been forced to mix stable/testing to get basic fixes in things like Apache. Another thing that really irritates is that the commercial and non-commercial security scanning tools throw lots of 'this version is insecure' false positives which all have to be investigated and ticked once proof of patch has been established, and we run such scanning frequently. > But with Debian I can point to the unstable-testing-stable system and my > boss understands that it has already gone through a 'teething' period > before it's released. This is also one reason that we use Debian - though more important to us is the improved security through fine-grained package control. > If Debian were to accelerate the path to stable too much stable would loose > it's value to us. (unless security fixes were released for older stable > versions) The opposite is true of our company - stable lags so far behind now that we have been forced to combine stable/testing/unstable - not only in things like Apache, but even in basics like the use of netfilter stateful firewalling in the 2.4 kernel series. I agree with Tim Uckden's comments - we don't need bleeding edge, but we also don't need some-obscure-whizzo-package-on-104-obsolete-hardware-architectures.deb holding up basic things like Apache, PHP, Perl, Mod_Perl, MySQL etc. We would be over the moon to have a mini-stable that only contained core packages, and that kept better pace with the real world. -----Original Message----- From: James Morgan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 09 May 2002 01:30 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: possible hole in mozilla et al At 15:38 2002-05-08 -0600, Tim Uckun wrote: >The situation right now is that for production you run an ancient system >or cross your fingers, hold your breath and run unstable. Coming from a corporate environment I hardly feel that stable is ancient. With most commercial operating systems the quality control seems so poor it takes a few years before we feel comfortable moving to a new release. But with Debian I can point to the unstable-testing-stable system and my boss understands that it has already gone through a 'teething' period before it's released. If Debian were to accelerate the path to stable too much stable would loose it's value to us. (unless security fixes were released for older stable versions) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
