OT: Linux Distrobutions?

Bob Jones bob.jones at USG.EDU
Mon Nov 3 19:38:20 GMT 2003

Ugo Bellavance wrote:
>>I can sort of understand not running Debian as your desktop unless you
>>really know what your doing because the stable release of Debian have
>>pretty old version of packages (so unless you're comfortable
>>running the
>>development distribution, you might not have all you need).  However,
>>for servers, it's the best.  You do a very minimal install
>>that and then
>>add the few packages you need for your services.  You won't have the
>>bloat of many other distributions for a server box.
>>All IMHO of course,
> Interesting, but which distribution are you running? testing or unstable?

I run unstable on my desktop.  In over a year I've had only 2 problems,
and both of those were with a Citrix client not working after the libc
libraries were updated, and that was fixed in a couple of days.

Unstable is sort of a misnomer imo, as I said above I almost never have
any problems with it and you get all the latest stuff with it.

Now, for a server that was going to run "production" services I would
stick with stable, or if you need something a bit newer but still
rock-solid, I've never had any problem with testing.

When all you have to do is an apt-get update and then apt-get upgrade
(or apt-get dist-upgrade if you're running unstable) to update your
system on security patches or apt-get install package-name to install
something, I don't know why anyone whould choose not to run it.


More information about the MailScanner mailing list