[Lancaster] Re: the kitchen network.

[Rupert Levene]

On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 01:55:40PM +0100, Ken Hough wrote:
> 
> 
> Rupert Levene wrote:
> >On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 10:36:16AM +0100, Martyn Welch wrote:
> >
> >>I'd probably lean more towards the majority of the software being
> >>from the stable tree for the server, I needed quite a bit of the
> >>software in the testing tree for the box I have at uni so I
> >>installed that instead.
> >>
> >>Sarge isn't really that big a jump, Debian seems more of a rolling
> >>distribution in which things are only incorporated into the testing
> >>tree once quite strict criteria are reached and only make it into
> >>the stable branch once extremely stable.
> >
> >
> >One unfortunate side-effect of this is that sarge packages do not get
> >timely security fixes, unlike stable. An all-woody server is the way
> >to go IMO.
> >
> >Rupert
> >
> I take that 'sarge' is an 'unstable' branch. You are suggesting that
> we go far an old and in many aspects an outdated distro?
> 

Yes :) for a server, this is a good thing. It's very well tested,
doesn't change when new versions come out and security fixes are
backported and trivial to keep on top of. The woody apache will still
happily serve web pages, outdated though it may be, and it's been
patched for the security holes that have emerged over the years. By
all means run client/desktop machines with modern distros, but for
servers it seems to me that security should be the top consideration.

Rupert