Hacker News Reader

Comment by gomox | Hacker News Reader

As a power user, I like updated packages on desktops without the hassle of running testing, and a debian-like system for servers with a predictable release date and packages newer than 1996 for servers.

I love Debian but Ubuntu really did wonders for Linux adoption. This said, wherever squeeze is modern enough, I will use it instead.

View on HN

I'd rather have debian stable. At least the packages actually work. Ubuntu is so damn unreliable (even LTS).

>unreliable (alt)

I would have disagreed with you until a few weeks ago. The past few updates have been requiring us to restart our servers. You restart it and a day later there is another update that requires another restart. Putting off updates on production servers is no longer a choice but having them now is not the best thing either.

I guess these are kernel security patches. You know why there are no patches for Debian stables? Because, no one bothers anymore to find stuff in 2.6

Considering a big chunk of 3.x is the same as 2.6... hmm.

Are blackhats finding stuff? If not, sounds good.

To be honest this is the least of our problems. We can reboot parts of our cluster without affecting overall capacity much. You just chuck the machines out of the load balancer pool and reboot them.

The issue is versions being pinned on LTS packages to broken versions. This includes svn, MySQL and a notable gcc problem which is a PITA.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com