Re: Stable vs. Testing Vs. Unstable
Hi,
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004, Loren M. Lang wrote:
> I'm curious about how many people are actually using Debian Unstable or
> Testing to Stable for normal desktop use or even a production server.
> I've being using Gentoo lately, and I love how nice the newer software
> is like KDE 3.2.1 or Gnome 2.4 and I don't want to go back to Gnome 1.x
> just because I want a "stable" debian system, where gentoo seems to run
> fine with the latest.
For firewalls and servers and the kind I always use Stable and keep the
security fixes up to date with the debian-security archive. Stable always
seems outdated, but for servers and stuff I never use any X packages. A
box running Stable never crashed on me.
For ordinairy desktop use I use Testing. Most packages are relatively
up-to-date (although some packages are out for a year but not in testing).
If I need an up-to-date package, I found it's always relatively easy to
recompile it yourself. Testing barely crashes, it's perfectly suitable for
desktop usage. The only problem with testing is that a package upgrade
doesn't always go smooth (incompatabilities, dependencies), but usually
the next upgrade fixes those problems.
Unstable I don't use, so I don't have experience with it. All I know from
the list is that unstable is often broken, leads sometimes to a complete
unworkable system and a lot of Debian package and Linux knowlegde is often
required to fix this.
I hope this shines some light on your decision.
Cheers,
Sebastiaan
--
English written by Dutch people is easily recognized by the improper use of 'In principle ...'
The software box said 'Requires Windows 95 or better', so I installed Linux.
Als Pacman in de jaren '80 de kinderen zo had be?nvloed zouden nu veel jongeren rondrennen
in donkere zalen terwijl ze pillen eten en luisteren naar monotone electronische muziek.
(Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, 1989)
Reply to: