| Weekly edition | Kernel | Security | Distributions | Search |
| Archives | Calendar | Subscribe | Write for LWN | LWN.net FAQ |
Distributions in 2004
Distributions in 2004
Posted Dec 23, 2004 7:12 UTC (Thu) by evgeny (subscriber, #774)Parent article: Distributions in 2004
> [...] argument that Debian's stable releases are designed primarily for servers and therefore do not need frequent upgrades is valid
Currently, this is true only for a small percentage of servers - those providing legacy services in a stagnating intranet environment. Anti-spam and content filtering, anti-virus checking, infrastructures for Web development (PHP/Zope/...) etc. of the age of 2-3 years are just completely unusable in the today's situation.
(Log in to post comments)
Debian... not too worried
Posted Dec 23, 2004 12:00 UTC (Thu) by alex (subscriber, #1355) [Link]
It would be nice for a new stable release but I do find for my servers the current stable is rock solid. Of course the one area I've had problems is with spam software but luckily backports.org allows me to have an upto date spamassasin with a known stable base.
Debian... not too worried
Posted Dec 23, 2004 12:34 UTC (Thu) by evgeny (subscriber, #774) [Link]
Right, backports.org is of a great help. Typically, I end up with about a dozen entries from it in apt/sources.list. But, since backports.org is in no official way connected to Debian proper, you can never be sure (not at the level of the "stable" packages, at least) of security holes patched in time etc. Also, this misses the point of reviewing _distributions_.
The future of distributions?
Posted Dec 23, 2004 13:42 UTC (Thu) by alex (subscriber, #1355) [Link]
Sure, however I'm not sure if the current model of distributions is the best way to get what we want (upto date features with core system stability). Ideally I would like a distribution that maintained a stable core but I ran the latest of a particular packages stable series, preferably direct from the package source. Of course that does require a shift in the way upstream packages maintain their stable series - more like Debians policy of only fixing the security hole rather than upping everyone to the next stable version.
Of course it isn't an ideal world, look as the OpenSSH changes for privilage separation for an example of the conflicting requirments between upstream mainatainers and distributions.
There is still plenty of space for innovation in the way distributions are designed and managed. I wonder if we will see any on 2005?