Re: updated debian development diagram -- comments?
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005, Holger Levsen wrote:
> unstable is described as suited for "...laptops and desktops on non-critical
> testing is described as "... can be used for desktop systems that need more
> I think this both is wrong. Unstable and testing should not be described as
> suited for desktops - they are development branches of debian, which are
> likely to break, which break and... so on. Most of you know :)
Agreed. Unstable is recommended only for people that "know what they are
doing". Certainly not for desktop usage, or anything like that.
As for "testing", well, that one can be recommended to users that need a
very up-to-date system but who can tolerate the lack of speedy security
updates... AND who know how to deal with ocasional breakage (yes, sometimes
it happens even in testing).
> good ol' "debian releases to seldom" argument...) - but as said I don't think
> Debian should propagate this misconcepts.
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot