Wrote Jeff Waugh on Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 12:44:51AM +1100:
> > Chuck Dale wrote:
> >
> > 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 "superceded".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.
>
> Look at slink. Look at potato. They're not Windows 98 -> Windows 98 SE.
>
> In this case, you're doing yourself a disservice by not upgrading. The
> amount of new features and software alone is worth the upgrade, but also the
> fact that with your upgrade, comes support.
>
> I strongly doubt that the upstream authors of the software in slink are
> supporting such old versions. Whilst the adage, "upgrade only when you must"
> is good to live by, you have to balance it with reality.
And the new security holes introduced by new features? New bugs? Never!
I forgot, Debian defies traditional software engineering concerns.
Perhaps there are new features that would be useful. If there are, then
upgrade. Don't upgrade just because of some general belief that there
are so many new features and software packages that you're losing out by
not upgrading.
It's a good point that if upstream authors are not supporting such
versions then it would be time to upgrade. With FreeBSD however, old
packages seem to be supported for a much longer time than with
Debian/Linux.
> > It's been out Two Months and it's superceded??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.
>
> Always, or for small values thereof?
If I'm not upgrading then I can't have a problem. Yes?
Chuck
[ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug
