Re: potato or woody?

[Erik Steffl <steffl@bigfoot.com>]

Bill Wohler wrote:
> 
> Stefano <stecalza@tiscalinet.it> writes:
> > I'm going to install debian gnu/linux on a new computer and I'm
> > wondering if woody is stable enough. What would you suggest me: potato
> > or woody?
> 
>   I find that the biggest problem with woody is the update process.
>   Packages are often installed with broken dependencies. Once I
>   finally get a clean install, the software itself works just fine. It
>   can be extremely frustrating, but this is the price you pay to stay
>   on the bleeding edge.

  broken dependencies? then how come it's installed?

  I use unstable and it works fine (and fixes are fast, in most cases).
considering the interval between releases and quality the terms
unstable/stable are a bit misleading when compared to the rest of
computer world. unstable is unstable but is generally fully usable and
about the same level of quality as newest releases of other distros...
unstable is suitable for servers or other computers that are mission
critical (which most of the home machines or personal workstations are
not). do not forget to backup your data though (and that's valid for
both stable and unstable)

	erik