1, 2010 at 10:36 PM, Russ Allbery <[email protected]> wrote: > "Fuentes, Adolfo" <[email protected]> writes: > >> - If the user is experienced, they argue that the libraries are somehow >> old compared to other distros, with cutting-edge software. Here it >> depends on individuals, since I prefer the solid-rock stability of >> Debian to the problem of upgrading systems regularly. > > This one always boggles me and makes me wonder if we should present Debian > unstable or testing as the "typical" installation. Debian testing (and > often Debian unstable) is more stable than the distributions with > equivalent up-to-date libraries, and those distributions generally never > offer anything remotely like Debian stable. (RHEL is considerably more > unstable than Debian stable *and* has even older software, for example.) > > -- > Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] > Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected] > >
Are you serious? What about the stability Debian is known for? IMHO, this totally ruins the point of Debian. Back when I first started using Linux, I always heard that Debian == Stability. And now as a server admin, I like how little Debian changes, and how you can expect almost no breakages when upgrading stable. I can't get that from most other distros; that's why I pick Debian as my server Linux of choice. If people think this is a problem with Debian, rather than a feature, then Debian just isn't for them, and I don't think Debian should try and meet every single use case out there. Granted my opinion really doesn't count in the long run, but I choose Debian stable for servers because of its stability. Testing and unstable just don't cut it for servers in my book. -- -Will Orr -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
