Re: How unstable is unstable?
On Thu, 22 Apr 1999, Christian Dysthe wrote:
> So my question is: Does unstable mean
> you will have all kinds of crashes and unexpected behavior, or does it mean
> that some programs might have more bugs than running in the stable
> distribution?
**************
WARNING: Everything i say here is my own personal experience. Your milage
may vary. So don't flame me if something doesn't work (:
**************
There's no guarantees about unstable working at all, but for the most part
the packages work as well as in stable. There were a few times when a
package wouldn't install correctly because of bad or missing dependancies,
but it worked fine to just put the problems on hold in dselect and wait
until they were fixed.
The two biggest problems i can remember recently (besides dependancy
problems) are that mod_perl would make apache fail under certain
confitions (which is fixed just today!) and that StarOffice 5.01 doesn't
like to work with glibc 2.1 (which isn't really Debian's fault, and which
we've found a fix for)
Read the mailing list archives, and see what people complain about not
working.
> I mean, if unstable means it has as many bugs as Windows, "the
> whole world" could actually be tricked into using it ;) (see: MS Market
> policies). But I assume higher standards here, and wonder how unstable it
> actually would be on my box?
Personally, i've had fewer problems with unstable than with windoze, my
only downtime has been because of hardware problems (the printer utilities
for configuring new ink cartridges are windoze-only) and kernel upgrades.
Remember, this is just me though. Collect opinions from as many people as
you can find before making your decision.
Reply to: