On Mon, 2004-12-27 at 09:18 -0600, Alex Malinovich wrote: > On Sun, 2004-12-26 at 22:39 -0600, Tim Kelley wrote: > --snip-- > > If you think testing or unstable is suitable for production systems you are > > one of > > > > 1. an idiot > > 2. have very limited needs/no experience > > 3. talking out of your ass > > 4. have no concept of what it means to be responsible for others' work > > Thanks for the kind words. :) > > My comment regarding the nuclear defense grid was a reference to mission > critical systems. If production DEPENDS on a server being up no matter > what, then absolutely, you should be running Woody. However, since the > majority of the work that I do is IT outsourcing for companies, most of > the servers that we put together are for internal or non-mission > critical external applications. > > In these cases, running Sid is perfectly acceptable and preferable, > since our customers tend to be more interested in having better features > available and they can survive if they go without email for 3 hours in a > year. And having 19 Sid servers in our data center and another 68 at > customer sites with no major problems in nearly 4 years should go a ways > towards illustrating that. > > But I do absolutely agree that for mission critical systems, stable > should be the only real choice.
With or without backports? Or hand compiled packages? or Third Party (read as non-Debian) software that needs non-Debian package (as in not packaged by Debian Developers for Debian)? To what extent do you see, MISSION CRITICAL SYSTEMS being? an example please. context: I also agree that for mission critical systems, stable should be the only real choice. I just want to know what justifications lead others to these conclusions. As I sometimes have wildly different schema for my classifications and just want to see just how wild they really are. Thanks in advance. -- greg, [EMAIL PROTECTED] The technology that is Stronger, better, faster: Linux
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part