SLUG Mailing List Archives
Re: [SLUG] [OT] Debian Flame on LWN
- To: slug@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [SLUG] [OT] Debian Flame on LWN
- From: Chuck Dale <bug@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue Oct 3 23:58:50 2000
- User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
Wrote Thom May on Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 01:33:58PM +0100:
> > If and when woody does become the offical release, and if potato then
> > becomes how can I say, lacking in maintance. I am sure I will be moving any
> > such machines I admin, and future machines over to something else. I'd dare
> > say, a BSD OS of sorts. Either FreeBSD or OpenBSD.
> Why? Give reasons! All you are doing here is FUDing on a
> Microsoftian level because they aren't releasing Security Fixes,
> for a release that was superceded two months ago,
> in the entirely reasonable expectation that you will upgrade,
> *for free* to the new release!
I would prefer to upgrade because there was a feature I needed in the
new release rather than because the version I'm running had been
"superceded". *This* would have to be the "Microsoftian" lie, that you
need to upgrade just because there's a new version.
It's been out Two Months and it's superceded??
No matter how good Debian is, there are still going to be less problems
introduced by not upgrading than by upgrading.
Of course, it's not for me to complain that they aren't supporting it
anymore. I'm not going to volunteer to do it so I'm not complaining,
just pointing out that there are people who aren't so keen on constantly
FreeBSD sets an excellent example on this point. I admin-ed some
machines at an ISP running FreeBSD 2.2.2 when that was starting to get a
little old. Coming from a Linux and MS background that felt ancient to
me. Yet I found more and more people running even older versions that
were still extremely stable and secure. They released security
vulnerabilities and that was the only necessary upgrade.
[ bug@xxxxxxxxx ]