>Errr.. the linked article means no, it is not safe to just cron an apt-get upgrade. In theory Debian is maintaining ABI/API. In practice there are issues. Roll

>Errr.. the linked article means no, it is not safe to just cron an apt-get upgrade. In theory Debian is maintaining ABI/API. In practice there are issues. Rolling releases in practice have better tradeoffs, but require continuous deployment. On a workstation there are really no significant issues. On a production infrastructure, you need to use poudriere to maintain your own repos and orchestrate a branching and installation strategy. There's a difference between manually logging in once a day and typing apt-get update && apt-get upgrade, seeing warnings, responding to them and applying and re-configuring/recompiling ports. One can take five minutes. One can take an hour. >On a workstation there are really no significant issues. Yes, and on linux you can run testing. But I want more stability on a server. > ZoL is fine, but support and integration still go Illumos > FreeBSD > ZoL. There are enough commercial products using FreeBSD ZFS that it is robust. For some reason, all of a sudden everyone thinks that ZoL is legally safe to use. I'm not a lawyer, but whatever. The point is that it's still new and not tested significantly, but it should be more stable soon. >UNIX uses the shell for a lot of things, interactive users are just one infrequent process. Bash is harmful as a non-interactive shell. Change your interactive shell to bash or zsh, problem solved. So write shell scripts against /bin/sh or dash. >Bash is harmful as a non-interactive shell. How is it harmful? I mean why are your putting your shell in an untrusted environment? Moreover, I understand if you like sh, tcsh, zsh or bash. My point is that it seems to me more of a "we always used tcsh/sh, so that's how it will stay forever" rather than "let's see what's the best default shell now and use it". And why can't both shells (or zsh, which is MIT licensed) be included in base?