[sf-lug] SF-LUG & BALUG: System OS upgrades *soon*(?) - volunteer(s)?

Brian Morris cymraegish at gmail.com
Mon Jan 23 18:34:57 PST 2012

IIRC some major installations choose to use the proper names.

Why - well for some other distros (eg Ubuntu) than Debian releases ("when
ready") are not so stable / secure when new.

Even with Debian tho there are always technical adjustments (new features,
even dropped packages).

There is a desire for planned rather than forced upgrades.

Also one may /should  be able to upgrade less often. I thought one release
back was always supported ?


On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:

> I wrote:
> > Somebody obviously decided to commit this blunder as a deliberate policy
> > choice, possibly the 'expert Linux sys admin with a particularly good
> > set of best practices' you speak of?  ;->
> Quick, Sherman!  The Wayback Machine!
> http://linuxmafia.com/pipermail/sf-lug/2007q2/001406.html
> http://linuxmafia.com/pipermail/sf-lug/2007q2/001408.html
> In 2007, I cautioned Michael Paoli and others against their proposal to
> peg Debian to a named branch and explained why it was unwise.  Might
> want to work with the Debian administrative regime.  It turns out better.
> _______________________________________________
> sf-lug mailing list
> sf-lug at linuxmafia.com
> http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/sf-lug
> Information about SF-LUG is at http://www.sf-lug.org/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://linuxmafia.com/pipermail/sf-lug/attachments/20120123/f3b02a5c/attachment.html>

More information about the sf-lug mailing list