Re: Stable Debian == obsolete??
I think woody is for those who really need seriously stable machine to
act as a server.
I'm on SID mostly because of the security 'issue' of SARGE.
SID tends to have more broken stuff, but security updates get there fast.
SARGE is 'more stable' but it can take longer before a security update
gets to testing, and i still found myself apt pinning to get some
packages from SID so i ended up with 'running testing' but a load
of packages from SID in there.
Alas, even SID is stable for me, except for the custom 2.4.22 kernels
not wanting to boot past INIT last weekend (fixed now after today's
update) i've never had really serious problems with it.
I know you didn't ask for 'which one?' but if you ask em you might
aswell go to SID.
[snip snap snip]
> Well, thats my sad history ;-P
> But, of course, I'm pushing the reset, and starting again. But would
like some guidance this time.
> The "Getting Debian" page mentions that:
> A network installation of the "testing" distribution will provide you
with the very latest packages, whereas any CD images of "testing" that
you download would be outdated very quickly.
> So the network installation of Sarge is my new bet. But I want to
know, how really unstable is it? I don't think most people could live
with Woody, so is it test the most used distro?
> I have lurked the release information, and have not seen any bug that
scares me, but any warnings regarding the Athlon XP Thoroughbred,
Geforce 4 Ti, emacs, PostgreSQL, perl and any other indispensable
program would be preciated.
> I would also suggest stating more prominently the age of Woody and
the prices that its stability entails.