also sprach xucaen@yahoo.com (on Wed, 12 Sep 2001 12:12:32PM -0500):
> how stable is testing? would it be too risky to upgrade from stable
> to testing?
have you been testing stable? this is not a question anyone will be
able to answer. most of us (as in the people usually answering) run
woody, and it suits us well, even though i'd say that unstable
currently is more stable than testing. the only way to find out:
backup, try it, revert if it doesn't meet your needs.
the only bits of facts i can give you: i have as of now been unable to
get postgresql-7.0 running (going to open a thread about that...), nor
did i manage to get IMP/horde up, but that's because of the postgres
backend not working.
furthermore, the apache transition does not work quite well, you'll
have to edit some config files. other than that, woody has XFree86 4.x
with it, which doesn't work on my laptop (NM256 card) for instance.
improvements are on the side of postfix (now with tls option),
fetchmail (ssl option), bind 9 is finally there, apache is not from
last millenium anymore, debhelper is new(er), ssh is up to version 2,
snort doesn't crash all the time anymore, cdrecord can deal with many
more burners, and there is probably a myriad of other improvements.
maybe other people can add to the pros and cons of woody over
potato...
martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
\____ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:"; net@madduck
--
"we should have a volleyballocracy.
we elect a six-pack of presidents.
each one serves until they screw up,
at which point they rotate."
-- dennis miller
Attachment:
pgpLl8YxeQ2au.pgp
Description: PGP signature