Articles like this are amusing but also somewhat disturbing.
Ubuntu is based on debian unstable. It was created to escape the slow debian upgrade cycles and get more recent packages on the desktop.
So far, so good. But why are we now baking a server distro out of a desktop distro that is based on the unstable branch of a server distro? And who would put that on a server and try to "secure" it?
stable means "doesn't change very often". It does not mean "less buggy".
In my experience, Debian "stable" packages tend to be literally covered in bugs and security holes due to being years old. Only a few of the most popular packages get fixes backported.
Debian "stable" packages tend to be literally covered in bugs and security holes
Would you mind backing this up?
Only a few of the most popular packages get fixes backported.
Debian must have many popular packages then, considering lenny has accumulated security backports for 1529 packages in amd64 alone.
They take security pretty[1] seriously[2] and considering it's all done by volunteers it doesn't seem nice to spread FUD about their work without any data to verify your claims.
Ubuntu is based on debian unstable. It was created to escape the slow debian upgrade cycles and get more recent packages on the desktop.
So far, so good. But why are we now baking a server distro out of a desktop distro that is based on the unstable branch of a server distro? And who would put that on a server and try to "secure" it?