On Sun, Dec 26, 2004 at 02:42:31PM -0500, William Ballard wrote: > > On Sat, 2004-12-25 at 10:05 -0600, Alex Malinovich wrote: > > > Sid is probably not the right choice if you need to run a nuclear > > > defense grid, but for day to day work on the desktop and even on > > > servers, it's plenty stable enough in my experience. > > Running unstable on an outward-facing server is probably a bad idea > because security holes could be present. > > The general advice I've heard on this list is run wooody+security > updates + backports.
Backports are far more likely to have known but unpatched security holes than packages in unstable. Unstable is really no less insecure from that POV than stable. -- For every sprinkle I find, I shall kill you! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
