I agree - thanks Jim. Very helpful.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Nick Rout [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 10:23 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Getting Debian > > > Thank you Jim, that is the clearest description of debian > releases I have seen in a long time, if not ever! > > > On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 09:53:08 +1300 > Jim Cheetham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Wed, 2004-02-04 at 09:37, Brad Beveridge wrote: > > > 1) Stable > > > - Older packages, very solid > > > - Code name???? > > Currently called woody. > > > > > 2) Testing > > > - Newer packages, still quite stable, not bleeding edge > > > - Code name??? > > Currently called sarge > > > > > 3) Unstable > > > - Bleeding edge > > Yes, but stable enough to run a workstation on :-) > > > - Code name??? > > Always called sid > > > > > Basically, I don't know what the code names are & I am > not sure if I > > > have testing & stable around the right way. Could someone please > > > enlighten me? > > > > The code names are basically unimportant. The > 'distribution' that you > > choose simply informs the package manager what versions to get and > > track. You can, if you want, install packages from > 'unstable' into a > > 'stable' machine ... the downside is that this might require you to > > upgrade loads of dependancies as well (like libc), so think > carefully > > :-) > > > > There are other 'distributions', like backports.org, which takes > > up-to-date software that would otherwise exist in 'unstable', and > > build it with 'stable' versions of the dependancies. You > can therefore > > install a backported application into a 'stable' box, > without having > > to upgrade loads of dependancies (especially libc!) > > > > Security upgrades are performed to stable versions. Take the recent > > kernel security problems - these were fixed in new kernel > versions by > > kernel.org. The Debian security team applied the patches to > the older > > kernel versions associated with 'stable' a couple of days > later - so > > your 'stable' box could continue running 2.4.18, but would > include the > > latest security fixes. > > > > For a workstation, I've had no problem with 'unstable'. > > For servers, I track 'stable', but include extra software from > > 'backports.org' and 'unstable' where necessary. > > > > :-) > > > > -jim > > > > -- > Nick Rout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >
