On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 07:29:43AM +0000, Adam Funk wrote: > I've been using Debian testing on my home workstation for a while now > and am generally happy with it, but I understand there are some > disadvantages in comparison with unstable, such as recency of security > updates. I suppose the name "unstable" puts me off, since I work from > home a lot and need a functional computer all the time. What would be > the positive and negative effects of switching to unstable? > > > -- Hi Adam, From the posts I have read, 'testing' is best for people testing debian before it is released as 'stable'. 'unstable' packages, after some user testing, automatically move into 'testing'. After begin in 'testing' and some more time, the package goes into 'stable'. In this respect, 'testing' is the place where packages go before they inclusion in 'stable' debian. so, 'testing', after a new 'stable' has been released, is very close to 'unstable'. And before the release of the next 'stable', 'testing' is closer to 'stable'. It has a few characteristics relateing to this: if some part of kde in 'testing' has may bugs, and this cases kde to not function, the whole of kde is removed from 'testing'. So, groups of packages can be moved in and out as things get fixed in 'testing'. But as 'testing' gets closer to being 'stable', in tends to have less big shift like this. But the idea is that if you NEED kde, all you can do is wait until things are fixed. This can be a few days or a few months. With unstable, things are being put in all the time and it does not have the hugh package shift like 'testing'. Also, bug fixes reported in unstable or testing get put into the next unstable package. And as for security updates, 'stable' is the only one that has this. So, most people who do not need the 100% stability of 'stable' chose 'unstable' because it is more up-to-date with respect to hardware and versions. take this with a grain of salt as IANADD. (I am not a debian developer) :-) -Kev
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature