Test -- Where have all the horses gone?

[Ken Moffat]

Collins Richey wrote:

>On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 15:46:00 -0500, David Bandel <david.bandel at gmail.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 12:58:11 -0500 (EST), Net Llama!
>>
>>
>><netllama at linux-sxs.org> wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, Michael Hipp wrote:
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Net Llama! wrote:
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, Michael Hipp wrote:
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>>>(Your comments and the recent announcement about VA/Sourceforge going
>>>>>>FC2 from Debian has got me pondering again.)
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>>>>AFAIK, its just sf.net that is moving to Fedora from Debian.  I suppose i
>>>>>should ask Uriah (the sr sysadmin for sf.net) why they made the switch,
>>>>>cause i know he used to be a pretty hardcore debian guy.
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>It would be informative to hear about the thought process behind the
>>>>switch as I'm sure it wasn't made lightly. The news blurb I read a
>>>>couple of weeks ago really didn't say much.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>OK, i talked to uriah.  In a nutshell they got sick of waiting for debian
>>>to do a major release, and they needed a distro that released early &
>>>often & predictably.  The problem with waiting for debian is that when
>>>they did release, since it was so long since the last major release, a ton
>>>of stuff on the servers were broken (there were 3 glibc changes, at least
>>>2 gcc changes, and massive amounts of other 'lesser' changes).
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Well, this is true if and only if you used exclusively stable.  I use
>>testing and have no such problems.  Now unstable is just that, but I
>>find testing to be sufficiently bleeding edge to keep up, but not so
>>bleednig edge as to have stuff constantly borken.
>>
>>I'd say testing is a good tradeoff.
>>
>>    
>>

I use unstable, and find it quite stable. But this is a home server and 
desktops, not a production machine.

>
>I'd say a better name for debian stable is "relic."
>
>  
>

indeed.

-- 
ken