[Klug-general] Debian 4.0 released

J D Freeman klug at quixotic.org.uk
Wed Apr 11 11:49:23 BST 2007

Hash: SHA1

On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 08:49:27AM +0100, Karl Latimer wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 01:10 +0100, J D Freeman wrote:
> Who let her out of the cage?

Love you too.

> > In the UNIX world, the border line between what is, and isn't a server
> > is so thin and so blurred as to make the idea of a "server" version of a
> > distro, IMHO, laughable.
> Funny, I'd have thought that DVD's full of packages was laughable
> myself, 4.3Gb for Fedora, then stripping the bugger down into a server
> is a pain in the arse... mind you, 600-700Mb is quite nice, and doesn't
> come with all that useless crap. 

I would say a DVD full is laughable as well. Its been along time since I
used a cd to install an OS (I tend to use debootstrap). Last time I
installed debian, it was just over 90 meg. There is no stripping it down
for the server. There is no pissing around removing stuff you don't
need. This is why I suggest there is no real difference. Cos from this
90 meg install, I can apt-get install xwindows or I can apt-get install
apache, (or both if I wish). I can then tailor it to what I want,
without having to first remove stuff I don't want.

> Maybe YOU are right JD, maybe the major distributors are wrong... I
> doubt it.

Or, how about, all the major distributors are wrong, AND I am? Keep an
open mind to all options!

> LMFAO, I'm going to refrain from saying what is on my mind to that.

Awww, feel free to mail me off list, I am curious to hear this.

> START LIVING IN THE HERE AND NOW!!! FCS its always the same with you,
> just bugger off and write everything in hex for eniac will you, adding
> features, bug fixes and optimisation that comes with every release is
> important to stability. 

Not all bug fixes fix bugs (old bugs out, new bugs in), not all features
are needed, not all optimisations are worth having. Consider not every
install is the same, not everyone needs the same things. I am not
suggesting you should forsake all redhat and move to debian. What I am
suggesting is you stop slagging it off when you clearly don't know what
you are talking about. And accept that debian as an equally valid
choice. You like mint icecream, I like chocolate. Both valid choices.

> How many 2.6 kernel patches are back ported to 2.4? Should we all run
> apache 1.3? 

Funny you should mention that, I use apache 1.3 on several servers cos
it just bloody well works. I often get support requests from people
having problems with the new "FEATURES" of apache 2, and find that
ultimately 1.3 does what is needed. As for the kernel, tbh, anything 2.4
and onwards seems to be enough for the hardware I have at home. You have
to ask youself when you sit down to make a decision like this, what are
the benifits of the latest and greatest, what are the risks. Based on
this risk analysis, make a decision. What your acceptable level of risk
is, is entirely your call. I have a much lower level of acceptable level
of risk than many others. This is why some of my customers VM's are
reaching 550 day uptimes.

> Hmm, I think the quality control that apache does is good on its own,
> coupled with the redhat/ubuntu testing and all other distros putting
> their ore in help. 

Apache quality control is pretty good. Add the debian control on top of
that and what you get is fscking brilliant. Why settle for "pretty good"
when you can have the best?

> Grow up JD, and stop replying to this list to have someone to argue
> with... I'm not going to entertain you I suggest others don't either.

I don't need to reply to the list to have someone to argue with, thats
what I have IRC for. No, I am replying as I hate to see someone going
off at one about something they clearly seem to show little
understanding of. Especially when many of the developers they are
slagging off are people I consider friends, and one thing I will not do
is stand by and watch someone slag off a friend.

Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)


More information about the Kent mailing list