> James Wilkinson wrote:
>
> In many cases it is easier to upgrade to the newer version to fix a hole
> than it is to try to patch the old version.
This is an important issue with the slink vs. potato debate, and I mentioned
it quickly (but loudly) in another post.
Potato isn't brand-spanking new itself. It's been in use for a long time
already -> the development of Debian is incremental, as much so as the
end-user updating we always harp on about.
The question of maintainership is whether to support the conservatively new
release with easily patchable software, or a very old release that you'd
have to backport security fixes onto. It's an easy decision in my mind.
Don't believe the hype - Debian isn't cool because you have some whizzbang,
automated upgrading system, that's merely the icing on the cake. *Every*
distribution requires updates, Debian simply had a simple, time-saving means
of doing this before the others - but they're quickly catching up.
Debian has *all* the advantages of the 'Open Source' methodology, applied to
the creation of a complete operating system environment. That's the critical
difference.
apt is software. Debian is people.
(He says, having trouble restraining laughter... Maybe I should just start
dropping pamplets after all.)
- Jeff
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------- http://linux.conf.au/ --
Ye shall be cursed to fall in love so easily, and yet be so
cold of heart as never to express it.
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug
