| 1 |
Hey Igor, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Igor <lanthruster@×××××.com> writes: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> Jeroen, tell me how many users world wide do not prefer to upgrade Gentoo |
| 6 |
> on automated basis? There are important servers, and there are many |
| 7 |
> cases when after upgrade server stops. Do you remember that recent udev |
| 8 |
> change? And there are many similar cases. Imagine that your server |
| 9 |
> is running a reactor. So what would you prefer to keep it running the |
| 10 |
> reactor as it did flawlessly for 8 years or launch an upgrade taking |
| 11 |
> the risks to blast yourself? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Many be it's not only me, but somebody else who is thinking the same? |
| 14 |
> Are you sure that the majority of Gentoo users are indulged in |
| 15 |
> paranoid automated upgrade and then spending time fixing damage |
| 16 |
> that upgrade did? |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Do you have a car? Why you don't change EVERY detail in your car on a new |
| 19 |
> version on daily basis automatically? |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Why don't you change car as soon as a new version is released? Why not |
| 22 |
> changing the new mouse, new keyboard, new monitor, new supply daily as |
| 23 |
> soon as there is a new version? |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Not to mention that you can change daily appearances. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
IMHO, the bleeding-edgeness and stability form a balance. We cannot |
| 28 |
achieve both. Taking RHEL for example, it uses ancient software for the |
| 29 |
sake of stability. Gentoo is way off the other extreme. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
For the udev change, the upstream has been doing evil and eudev is not |
| 32 |
introduced as the default for Gentoo (yet). |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
New software breaks things, and security-updated old software needs |
| 35 |
extra care: That's the fundamental problem we couldn't circumvent. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Cheers, |
| 38 |
Benda |
Archives