On Wednesday 05 June 2002 01:57 pm, Jeronimo Pellegrini wrote: > > How does FreeBSD manage to stay reasonably secure and stable, yet modern > > (compared to Potato)? > > I think it's because they don't have a "zero-bugs" release policy like > Debian. The base system is stable. The stuff in the ports tree is not, from > my experience. I once decided to install gdm on a FreeBSD box... There were > *lots* of broken dependencies in the ports tree, and I had to vgrep > the missing dependencies in the compile logs. :-/
I'm not advocating FreeBSD. In fact, I tried it a couple of times, ran it for a week or two and hated it for a variety of reasons. Debian is the only OS/Distribution that I ever liked (which is no surprise, of course) I just wanted to say that maybe changes to "stable" should be more incremental. E.g., once it's determined that KDE2 is secure and stable, why not add it? We all know that the situation with KDE was easily remedied by adding extra lines to sources.list, but not with other great programs that never made it into Potato. Why should users risk remote root if all they want is some desktop software? BTW I looked at Slashdot today. Some one-line post calling Debian project (not HURD) a failure got moderated up to 4 : Interesting! This may be evidence of Debian's bad PR. Regards, Oleg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
