[Troll] Evangelism is War - Linux

This is a discussion on [Troll] Evangelism is War - Linux ; Bob Hauck writes: > On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 12:13:46 +0100, Hadron > wrote: > >> Debian Edge is not "stable" as in "just works". > > In my experience it is quite reliable. And it's "Etch". It is quite ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4
Results 61 to 67 of 67

Thread: [Troll] Evangelism is War

  1. Re: amicus_fuddie defines honesty .. :)

    Bob Hauck writes:

    > On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 12:13:46 +0100, Hadron
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Debian Edge is not "stable" as in "just works".

    >
    > In my experience it is quite reliable. And it's "Etch".


    It is quite stable yes. But there are a shed load of fixes in testing
    which in many ways makes testing a better bet for many jobs.

    Yeah I was going to post a correction but hoped it would slip under the
    radar :-; I was thinking of testing and bleeding edge at the time.

    >
    >> It is full of known bugs.

    >
    > Certainly. So is every other collection of thousands of programs.
    > Would you prefer that the bugs be unknown and constantly changing?


    Certainly not. What gave you that idea? my point is that its not "rock
    solid" in terms of stability as HPT continues to sell us. It is SW. And
    SW has bugs. And Etch has a lot of them. Yes, known bugs makes things
    easier to predict and avoid, no doubt.

  2. Re: amicus_fuddie defines honesty .. :)

    On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:32:22 +0100, Hadron
    wrote:

    > Bob Hauck writes:
    >
    >> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 12:13:46 +0100, Hadron
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Debian Edge is not "stable" as in "just works".


    >>> It is full of known bugs.

    >>
    >> Certainly. So is every other collection of thousands of programs.
    >> Would you prefer that the bugs be unknown and constantly changing?

    >
    > Certainly not. What gave you that idea?


    Your statements about known bugs in stable being fixed in testing as a
    reason to use testing. The bugs in testing are constantly changing as
    new versions of things get introduced, but you don't seem to be bothered
    by that.

    It is extremely unlikely that testing has fewer total bugs than stable
    at this point in the cycle.


    > my point is that its not "rock solid" in terms of stability as HPT
    > continues to sell us. It is SW. And SW has bugs. And Etch has a lot of
    > them.


    Perhaps in the spirit of advocacy you could tell us what OS has
    comparable functionality but fewer bugs. Be sure to include the bugs in
    the top few thousand applications for that OS as well. Then we could
    know what "full of bugs" or "rock solid" means to you. I think it means
    something different than it does for most people.

    Yes, etch has bugs, but they don't seem to impede day-to-day usability
    for most people. They don't make it unstable or prone to crashing which
    seems to be what you are trying to imply.


    --
    -| Bob Hauck
    -| http://www.haucks.org/

  3. Re: amicus_fuddie defines honesty .. :)

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 12:13:46 +0100,
    Hadron wrote:
    > High Plains Thumper writes:
    >
    >> Jim Richardson wrote:
    >>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>> Jim Richardson writes:
    >>>>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>>>> High Plains Thumper writes:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Debian is known for its extreme stability, good for
    >>>>>>> deployment to where one wants maximal productivity
    >>>>>>> with minimal disruptions, or mission critical
    >>>>>>> application.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> LOL. Poor HPT.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Did he say something you disagree with?
    >>>>
    >>>> Yes. He is quite clearly not understanding "stable" once
    >>>> more.
    >>>
    >>> No, he's got it exactly right. Stable, as in not changing
    >>> unless absolutely neccessary.

    >>
    >> The only stable Hadron knows is one where horses are kept. Only a
    >> horse's behind would ignore OEM recommendations and use an unstable
    >> version for production work.

    >
    > "minimal disruptions", "mission critical"
    >
    > Debian Edge is not "stable" as in "just works". It is full of known
    > bugs.
    >


    etch, not edge.


    It's stable as in "don't change unless you have to"


    There's some 15000+ packages there, yes, there are bugs, and are you
    going to claim that's somehow a surprise?


    > The problem here is that HPT as usual is just parroting other people.


    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHwyb4d90bcYOAWPYRApCTAJ9+JWaN+xRcv41EwPq6i+ tr0Ttw2wCfdrjm
    rDjQJ9Bh8HNyPdJsXcb++mA=
    =r4wj
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    Homo sapiens, isn't

  4. Re: amicus_fuddie defines honesty .. :)

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:32:22 +0100,
    Hadron wrote:
    > Bob Hauck writes:
    >
    >> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 12:13:46 +0100, Hadron
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Debian Edge is not "stable" as in "just works".

    >>
    >> In my experience it is quite reliable. And it's "Etch".

    >
    > It is quite stable yes. But there are a shed load of fixes in testing
    > which in many ways makes testing a better bet for many jobs.
    >
    > Yeah I was going to post a correction but hoped it would slip under the
    > radar :-; I was thinking of testing and bleeding edge at the time.
    >



    The problem with running testing on a server, is that it is just that,
    testing. Sure, a given package might fix a bug in a stable package that
    you care about. But the flip side is that you will be doing updates on a
    weekly if not daily basis to keep that. Stable gets bugfixes and
    security fixes for serious problems, but doesn't make big version
    changes without a damn good reason. Big bugfixes are backported into the
    stable version where possible.


    So yeah, it "just works" in the sense that if it's working, you don't
    futz with it. Stable, not changing. As HPT pointed out.

    >>
    >>> It is full of known bugs.

    >>
    >> Certainly. So is every other collection of thousands of programs.
    >> Would you prefer that the bugs be unknown and constantly changing?

    >
    > Certainly not. What gave you that idea? my point is that its not "rock
    > solid" in terms of stability as HPT continues to sell us. It is SW. And
    > SW has bugs. And Etch has a lot of them. Yes, known bugs makes things
    > easier to predict and avoid, no doubt.



    It's interesting watching you twist and turn in attempts to attack the
    man, rather than the issue.


    So lets get down to brass tacks. You tell me that Etch is "full of known
    bugs" perhaps you can show me oh, say 2 serious unpatched bugs in the
    current version of stable's apache server?


    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHwygTd90bcYOAWPYRAmKFAJ42IYAc6ccd9MmTQK4JuP iWCMzU6wCgt69u
    BavIBaFX1FxbP4XXBGP+hoA=
    =DkW6
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    The United States of America: Screwing with the
    English Language for over 200 years.
    --Mike Sphar

  5. Re: amicus_fuddie defines honesty .. :)

    Jim Richardson wrote:

    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:32:22 +0100,
    > Hadron wrote:
    >> Bob Hauck writes:
    >>
    >>> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 12:13:46 +0100, Hadron
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Debian Edge is not "stable" as in "just works".
    >>>
    >>> In my experience it is quite reliable. And it's "Etch".

    >>
    >> It is quite stable yes. But there are a shed load of fixes in testing
    >> which in many ways makes testing a better bet for many jobs.
    >>
    >> Yeah I was going to post a correction but hoped it would slip under the
    >> radar :-; I was thinking of testing and bleeding edge at the time.
    >>

    >
    >
    > The problem with running testing on a server, is that it is just that,
    > testing. Sure, a given package might fix a bug in a stable package that
    > you care about. But the flip side is that you will be doing updates on a
    > weekly if not daily basis to keep that. Stable gets bugfixes and
    > security fixes for serious problems, but doesn't make big version
    > changes without a damn good reason. Big bugfixes are backported into the
    > stable version where possible.
    >
    >
    > So yeah, it "just works" in the sense that if it's working, you don't
    > futz with it. Stable, not changing. As HPT pointed out.
    >
    >>>
    >>>> It is full of known bugs.
    >>>
    >>> Certainly. So is every other collection of thousands of programs.
    >>> Would you prefer that the bugs be unknown and constantly changing?

    >>
    >> Certainly not. What gave you that idea? my point is that its not "rock
    >> solid" in terms of stability as HPT continues to sell us. It is SW. And
    >> SW has bugs. And Etch has a lot of them. Yes, known bugs makes things
    >> easier to predict and avoid, no doubt.

    >
    >
    > It's interesting watching you twist and turn in attempts to attack the
    > man, rather than the issue.


    Funny that it's *generally* accepted that Debian *releases* are "rock solid" &
    stable, & quoted as such by many *outside* this group.

    Choice of three distributions ranging from the rock-solid "stable" distribution
    to the "unstable"



    But even though a stable Debian release is not only rocksolid, but also usable
    and user-friendly, things always can be improved.

    http://debian-community.org/

    A quote from someone in the Ubuntu forums:
    "Debian delivers if you're not concerned with having the latest and greatest and
    you want something that is absolutely ROCK SOLID and don't mind getting your
    hands dirty (a little). Stability, at least for me, trumps having the latest
    and greatest."
    http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=412526


    User type: Debian user who needs to have a rock-solid Debian server in the
    production environment.Stable + security fixes (may use testing only after
    freeze)

    Debian stable packages usually bear old upstream version numbers but Debian
    always backports security fixes without including other new features which may
    cause stability issues.

    Debian takes security very seriously. Most security problems brought to our
    attention are corrected within 48 hours. So you have nothing to worry about in
    a distribution itself, but watch out for **your own bad system
    configuration.** :-)

    Also, you have an option to run the unstable flavor. Amazingly, it is quite
    stable despite its name. You just have to know how to fix problems. (There is
    no special security-fix program for the testing/unstable flavors of
    distribution. You just install the current unstable version that fixes security
    bugs.)
    http://people.debian.org/~osamu/newbie.html

    And who's to say that these "load of fixes in testing" of Etch are merely
    improvements & updates to applications? ;-)

    > So lets get down to brass tacks. You tell me that Etch is "full of known
    > bugs" perhaps you can show me oh, say 2 serious unpatched bugs in the
    > current version of stable's apache server?



    --
    Free-BSD 7.0, PC-BSD 1.4
    Linux systems: PCLOS 2007, Mandrake One 2008.1,
    Fedora 8, Kubuntu 7.10.
    -- On 64bit systems --

  6. Re: amicus_fuddie defines honesty .. :)

    William Poaster wrote:
    > High Plains Thumper expressed:
    >>> William Poaster wrote:
    >>>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>>> William Poaster espoused:
    >>>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>>>>> William Poaster espoused:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Quack's *really* showing his *true* colours,
    >>>>>>>> both in this group & in another. As someone
    >>>>>>>> said, he's an embittered troll.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> He's gone downhill very rapidly.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Seems to have accelerated after his "demo" with
    >>>>>> Debian Lenny "Testing"...
    >>>
    >>> Debian is known for its extreme stability, good for
    >>> deployment to where one wants maximal productivity with
    >>> minimal disruptions, or mission critical application.

    >
    > The *released* versions are, yes. And that is why Debian is
    > used as a server distro.
    >
    >>> It is rather humorous that one would have problems.

    >
    > What was amusing was his rant about people (ie: "The COLA
    > gang) not knowing what "stable" meant. He's using a beta
    > version "Lenny" which is still in "Testing" & not released
    > into "Stable" as a finished distro. WTF did he expect.
    >
    > From Debian's site:- The stable distribution contains the
    > latest officially released distribution of Debian. This is the
    > production** release of Debian, the one which we primarily
    > recommend using.
    >
    > **Note the "production" part of their statement.
    >
    >>> Perhaps he misses Windows 9x days and wants to simulate
    >>> the experience? :-)

    >
    > Wouldn't he get that with "Me Two"...er....Vista?


    He could, but wait .... he could also get that from MSN:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080226/..._te/microsoft_
    hotmail_outage;_ylt=AsgPiULbV3bJYLj2BzOYyDVU.3QA

    or http://tinyurl.com/2nzym5

    Microsoft Hotmail blocked for some

    Tue Feb 26, 5:24 PM ET

    SEATTLE - An undisclosed technical glitch blocked users from
    logging on to Microsoft Corp.'s free Web-based e-mail service and
    other sites Tuesday.

    After several hours, the software maker was able to reduce but
    not completely fix the problem that left Web surfers around the
    world unable to access Hotmail and other services that require a
    Microsoft login. Those include the Xbox Live video game community
    site and the Windows Live Messenger instant messaging program.
    Also this for Vista and XP:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/2008...world/142751;_
    ylt=AkEzy5R6x4vZW5LAhuwa59tU.3QA

    or http://tinyurl.com/ywb9rn

    Rogue Packets Stalk Windows Vista, XP

    Stuart J. Johnston, PC World Tue Feb 26, 4:00 PM ET

    Just in time for spring, Microsoft has been busy tending to a new
    swarm of bugs, including a critical hole in Windows Vista and XP
    that could expose you to an early-season bite without your doing
    anything other than being online.

    In an attack, a cracker could broadcast rogue TCP/IP packets to a
    range of addresses on the Internet, possibly including your PC's.
    Sounds all too common, right? These rogue packets, however, are
    designed to trick their way past Windows' security and hijack
    your PC, making your machine part of a botnet for sending out
    spam--or worse, a self-copying worm.
    ** Notice the "production" part of their statement. :-)

    --
    HPT

  7. Re: amicus_fuddie defines honesty .. :)

    William Poaster writes:

    > High Plains Thumper expressed:
    >>> William Poaster wrote:
    >>>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>>> William Poaster espoused:
    >>>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>>>>> William Poaster espoused:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Quack's *really* showing his *true* colours, both in
    >>>>>>>> this group & in another. As someone said, he's an
    >>>>>>>> embittered troll.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> He's gone downhill very rapidly.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Seems to have accelerated after his "demo" with Debian
    >>>>>> Lenny "Testing"...
    >>>
    >>> Debian is known for its extreme stability, good for deployment to
    >>> where one wants maximal productivity with minimal disruptions, or
    >>> mission critical application.

    >
    > The *released* versions are, yes. And that is why Debian is used as a server
    > distro.


    As are loads of others.

    >
    >>> It is rather humorous that one would have problems.

    >
    > What was amusing was his rant about people (ie: "The COLA gang) not knowing
    > what "stable" meant.


    And they certainly didn't seem to.

    > He's using a beta version "Lenny" which is still in "Testing" & not released
    > into "Stable" as a finished distro. WTF did he expect.


    Nothing more. Why? But I am contributing back. Are you?

    >
    > From Debian's site:-
    > The stable distribution contains the latest officially released distribution of
    > Debian. This is the production** release of Debian, the one which we primarily
    > recommend using.


    Your point being? I recommend it too. It doesn't mean its "rock
    solid". it certainly is not. And DO NOT try and maintain "rock solid"
    can refer to it not changing - that one will not wash.

    >
    > **Note the "production" part of their statement.
    >
    >>> Perhaps he misses Windows 9x days and wants to simulate the experience? :-)

    >
    > Wouldn't he get that with "Me Two"...er....Vista?


    Never installed it. No intention of installing it. You seem to know more
    about it than me.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4