[ILUG] Going to try debian

[Niall Walsh]

Rick Moen wrote:

>Quoting Niall Walsh (linux at esatclear.ie):
>
>  
>
>>If you want a testing machine, then use testing!   If you want a sarge 
>>machine, use sarge!   If you want a stable machine, use stable!
>>    
>>
>
>Fair enough.  I'm mainly arguing against people who rather irrationally
>think that today's testing branch is great, but that (for unexplained
>reasons) the post-release testing branch somehow won't be.  
>
>  
>
Agreed!   I like testing, but it's not recommended for general use 
because of the security updates.  That doesn't stop anyone from using 
it, it just means you do have to follow the security list.

>>I would suggest most people installing Debian now for the first time 
>>would want the next release (the RC candidate), and not the eternally in 
>>progress testing.
>>    
>>
>
>So, you're saying testing is good today, but (for unexplained reasons)
>won't be tomorrow (for post-release values of "tomorrow").  Ah.  Exactly
>the sort of rubbish I'm trying to dispell.
>
>This conversation recaps ones I've had during each of the last couple of
>release cycles.  {sigh}  There's always someone. 
>
>  
>
Not unexplained reasons, but for the simple reason that it will cease to 
have security updates once sarge is released.  I am recommending running 
stable NOT testing, I am however saying that you could acceptably run 
sarge now (if you really must force me to put it this way) despite the 
fact that it is testing.

If you want to recommend people run testing all the time, fine, I 
don't!   I am happy to recommend that people run sarge now!   I think 
this seems to be the only place in which our opinions diverge despite 
your assertions.

>  
>
>>In reality I would only really recommend people install stable, and 
>>venture beyond that only if they are happy to accept that they are 
>>walking into risky territory and should understand what they are doing 
>>(like trying to track security issues).
>>    
>>
>
>"Tracking security issues" means skim-read an DSA announcement e-mail
>maybe once a week on average, and for each e-mail either think "Nope,
>doesn't apply" and delete, or type one of the following (after "apt-get
>update"):
>
># apt-get install [packagename]
># apt-get  -t unstable  install packagename
>
>...making sure you've, in fact, fetched the fixed version.  If it isn't
>the fixed version, there's a remote chance you might need to ftp the
>"stable" version, one in proposed-updates, etc., or take other
>corrective measures as required.
>
>In other words, pretty much what's normal on Linux distributions, generally, 
>as opposed to being pampered by the Debian Security Team, as with
>Debian-stable.  I say all that in order to restore (in my view) missing
>perspective.
>
>  
>
I think most people like being pampered.  Why complicate things?   
Remember, I only suggested leaving stable in the first place because 
sarge is now receiving security updates!

Tracking the security issues for testing is easy, as is unstable but 
stable is easier still!

Which would pass the Granny test easier?

>>I stick with my argument that NOW sarge is the way to go, sarge+sid with 
>>apt-pinning if you want to get at the latest and greatest.
>>    
>>
>
>Fundamentally irrational.  My view, yours for a suitable fee and
>disclaimer of reverse-engineering rights.  ;->
>
>  
>
A:   Use testing, lose security updates when sarge is released
B:   Use sarge, lose updates when etch is released
C:   Use whatever and change when you should and understand what this means
D:   Just use stable and don't complain about the old software

Irrational?

Niall Walsh