Kevin Ruml <kruml@xtria.com> writes: > This topic/suggestion that desktop users should use "unstable" > rather than "stable", since it's no more unstable than other distros > latest releases, comes up regularly. What is the reason "unstable" > isn't renamed to something else to dispel the stigma the name gives? > Not necessarily "desktop", but there has to be something better than > "unstable". Except unstable fairly regularly does break. It's not meant for production, it's what the Debian Developers are currently working on. > I've been using Sid on my desktop system for years with only a > couple glitches over that time period (requiring not "apt-get > update"ing for a few days 'til it sorted itself out). I'm sure > there are a number of suggestions forthcoming - "latest" maybe. I've had more problems than you, it sounds like, but still, anybody with better things to do than fix things that broke for no obvious reason from time to time should be using stable and using backports. -- Paul Johnson <baloo@ursine.ca>
Attachment:
pgpnb7h9dsKT_.pgp
Description: PGP signature