Maintained by: NLnet Labs

[Unbound-users] Unbound release 1.4.12

Gábor Lénárt
Mon Jul 18 22:20:14 CEST 2011


Re,

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 01:32:13AM +0600, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 17:19:35 +0200 Gábor Lénárt wrote:
> > Not everybody uses
> > "bleeding edge" distributions, I prefer more stable ones, that's why I am
> > using LTS versions of Ubuntu, for example.
> 
> Then why are you using bleeding edge version of unbound? Really, you
> should either not mix stable and most recent packages or mix them at

Hmmm, Bleeding edge means unstable (or at least the risk of unstability,
untested status, often alpha/beta/whatever quality, etc).  Do you mean, that
the latest version of unbound is considered as unstable and/or not (safe)
"production ready"?  I am not native English speaker (as you can notice it
for sure), but according to the definition, I've found:

"Bleeding edge technology refers to technology that is so new that it could
have a high risk of being unreliable and may incur greater expense in order
to use it."

So for example unbound 1.4.12 falls into this category? According to you it
is, since you name unbound 1.4.12 as "bleeding edge".  As far as I can see,
newer unbound versions nowdays usually fixes bugs (ok, sometimes introducing
new features as well), but I never thought that they are not stable and/or
not recommended in production.  But the opposite: it's a good idea to
upgrade especially if there are security fixes, for example. I think, if
most recent versions of unbound would be so "dangerous" and "new" ones,
security fixes would be provided against older versions too, but I don't
know about this in case of unbound, at least according to the site of
unbound 1.4.12 is simple the "current version" and the page also mentiones
that it fixes some issues.

When I speak about "bleeding edge" distributions (I talked about GNU/Linux
distributions, and NOT about unbound when I told "bleeding edge"), I also to
this meaning: like "Debian unstable" or testing, whatever.  Though it can be
argueed that Debian is usually quite stable (even when called as
"unstable"): even the distributor use terms like "unstable" and "testing" to
name their distributions.  I believe that they know what they're doing: if
they say, "unstable" and "development", then I don't use them in production
at least (my own computer/hobby server etc are another question).  I don't
know too much about Fedora (I've never used it) but as far as I read about
it, it can also contain greater amount of very new solutions/software
versions/etc most distributions would use it later when it becomes more
stable and tested.  So in this sense these are bleeding edge (so: not so
stable but the other hand: quite new stuffs, and maybe new and great
features, which can even generate flames, like systemd in Fedora, etc)
distributions.

> Really, you should either not mix stable and most recent packages or mix them at
> your own risk with your own responsibility, however the latter will
> likely broke your system eventually.

"stable" and "most recent packages". Here, I guess you mean that "most
recent" = "not so stable" (as you mentioned "stabe" before as the opposite).
Then again: is version 1.4.12 of unbound is not stable? I thought it is.
I would call SVN repository of unbound as unstable/development/etc versions,
and released versions are stable. Am I wrong here?