Debian dated? [was: Re: Announcement from www.kubuntu.de]

[Pupeno]

On Tue, 2006-04-11 at 05:40 -0700, Michael M. wrote:
> And because Debian has (or has had, anyway) a longish release 
> cycle in comparison with other distros.  But Debian's testing and 
> unstable branches are as up-to-date as any distro, and currently more 
> up-to-date than Ubuntu Breezy.
Yes, but those are you said, are unstable branches and indeed it is
unstable. They may break things at any time without warning. If you ask
Debian developers you'll see that the generally don't recommend the
unstable branches for production.
Ubuntu Breezy instead is stable, I can put it in production and not
expect it to suddenly break tomorrow because of an upgrade, that happens
in Debian testing and unstable like it happens in Ubuntu unstable
(Dapper).
You may change the phrase: Debian stable is almost always or always more
dated that Ubuntu stable; the unstable branches are not important to the
comparison, not many people use them and they shouldn't be used for
anything else than testing them and developing them.
Personally I am waiting to give Ubuntu a chance as a server (that is, I
am waiting the next server installation). Ubuntu might not be as stable
as Debian but I believe it might be stable enough.

> Isn't an Ubuntu release more-or-less a 
> snapshot of Debian's unstable branch, with Ubuntu-specific 
> customizations and configurations?
I think it is much more than that. It is not a snapshot but a
stabilization of it.
-- 
Pupeno <pupeno at pupeno.com> http://pupeno.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/attachments/20060411/6e060127/attachment.sig>