Someone without a real name wrote.
That's not "stable" in any sense, especially considering the packages which occasionally break in Sid. Put it this way: I don't want to risk PAM, my video driver, or glibc breaking, so I don't run sid.On Thu, Jan 01, 2004 at 09:21:25PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:* It's very difficult to have an even moderately up-to-date Debian system which is also stable;I'm running Sid as a desktop machine; I apt-get upgrade every day.I occasionally have (quite severe) problems with a package or two, but that's not the typical case: typically everything works quite well.
Woody wasn't even moderately up-to-date in many ways when it was released, and is even less so now. So at the moment I run sarge -- plus carefully selected pieces from sid when something in sarge breaks horribly (like the KDE 2/3 mix or the GNOME 1/2 mix).
I have trouble grokking your "very difficult" statement outside of servers, but I know it's called "unstable" for a reason. Could you please provide some depth to the statement?
Perhaps you would prefer it if I said "difficult enough to be annoying" rather than "very difficult"?