Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Message-ID: <4162CAB3.2EEC6427@dessent.net> Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 09:24:19 -0700 From: Brian Dessent Organization: My own little world... MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin-talk AT cygwin DOT com CC: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Which Linux after CyGwin? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com (Take this to cygwin-talk please.) "DePriest, Jason R." wrote: > If you do use > Debian, please don't use the 'stable' release. It is very ancient (but > stable!). Use the 'testing' release. For the most part, you won't have > any problems and if you do have a problem, expect it to be fixed > quickly. That's a very slippery slope and disagrees sharply from the official Debian line. You are strongly urged to NOT use "testing" in a production environment. Why? Because criticial security bug fixes are only guaranteed for "stable". They occur for testing and unstable of course, but at a relaxed pace. I think that you do a disservice by automatically stating that one should ignore "stable". At the very least point them to so that they can decide for themselves. It is entirely possible to run the stable branch without ancient versions of everything: Brian -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/