Re: status of jackd? (bug #318098)
Nigel Jones <nigelj@gmail.com> writes:
> On 09/08/05, Erik Steffl <steffl@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> mini rant: what's the point in breaking important packages in
>> unstable for significant periods (e.g. the bug above was filed
>> 2005/07/13)? Isn't experimental more appropriate for stuff like this?
>> Same for udev (requiring linux kernel 2.6.12 which wasn't available for
>> debian) etc. At least explanation and status update would help (the bug
>> does have a vague ETA but no explanation). Unstable is pretty much the
>> only debian version usable for desktop (in general, I guess somebody
> I would _NEVER_ recommend someone install Debian Unstable as a
> desktop... Testing, yes, Stable even more so.
I'm running current unstable on multiple desktops, including the one on
which I'm currently typing this message. Let's not go too overboard here
with exaggeration. :)
> Sorry if any of the details are incorrect, but I do not like the idea
> of Desktop computers running unstable, esp in the world of what seems
> to be, mostly, Windows users. Only exception, developers/maintainers
> that work in those areas and have to test constantly, and are prepared
> to...
I understand why people do keep saying things like this, and certainly I
wouldn't give unstable to someone who really doesn't understand how Debian
works and isn't capable of working around problems. That being said, for
someone with basic competence in Unix, it works extremely well. I've been
running unstable for quite a while now and have yet to have anything
significant break. I'm sure that it will at some point, but the rate is,
in my experience, no more frequent than once every six months, if that.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: