[PLUG] Should I go unstable?

[Carla Schroder]

On Thursday 20 January 2005 7:46 am, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Wednesday 19 January 2005 09:50 pm, Carla Schroder wrote:
> 
> > Sid works fine, the "unstable" name sounds scarier than it is. My main 
> > workstation is a Sid box. The only drawback is the lack of security 
> > updates- there might be a few, but don't count on them.  
> 
> Security updates are about the only thing that get fast-tracked from sid 
> to sarge.

What do you mean, fast-tracked? As far as I know from hanging out on the 
lists, whatever security updates are made to unstable are few and far 
between. There is a security archive for testing, but it's not very active. 
Or am I missing something?

http://www.debian.org/security/faq#testing
Q: How is security handled for testing and unstable?
A: The short answer is: it's not. 

The lack of security updates in either testing or unstable, and the antiquity 
of stable have me looking for another distribution to use on servers.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Carla Schroder
http://www.tuxcomputing.com
check out my new book, the "Linux Cookbook", the ultimate Linux user's 
and sysadmin's guide! http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/linuxckbk/
this message brought to you
by Libranet 2.8 and Kmail
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~