On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 11:28:18AM -0800, Seth Cohn wrote: > > > Every user of testing knows that he must read > > > debian-security-announce and if needed install fixes from unstable > > > since it can take an arbitrary amount of time until security fixes > > > from unstable enter testing (most likely none of fixes from the > > last > > > 70 security advisories is in testing). > > Joseph and I were just talking about this yesterday. > Stuff only makes testing once's it's hit a stability of a few weeks. > So testing is the least secure because of that. Unstable is second, > because it needs to be compiled for many architechtures. > Stable is usually good, and adding security.debian.org's stable updates > often is the answer, though it won't always work for all packages if > you run testing.
Backwards..
Stable requires 13 machines recompiling the security fix (including an old
Amiga, Atari, or Mac using a Motorola 680x0 chip - hope the security fix
isn't in XFree in that case..)
Testing requires the 13 machine recompile and to be stable for a couple
weeks.
Unstable gets fixes as soon as the mirrors are synched, which is about
once a day.
> I used to subscribe to all of the mailing lists, but I tried to get a
> life. Not that it helped.
It can be confirmed that Seth has no life. ;)
> Then install stable. If you choose cutting edge (or near cutting edge)
> over security & stability, of course it takes a bit more 'bother'.
You get more security at the cost of potential stability.
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> You're entitled to my opinion
<Teknix> our local telco has admitted that someone "backed into a
button on a switch" and took the entire ATM network down
<netgod> hopefully now routers are designed better, so the "network
off" swtich is on the back
msg12838/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
