Re: Stable vs. Testing Vs. Unstable
On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 09:14:20AM +0200, Sebastiaan wrote:
> 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.
Again, the misconception rears it's head. For a lot of the time testing
may well be / is less usable than unstable. I really think that this
fact needs to be appropriately documented somewhere. Perhaps I'll raise
a bug report.
Often problems with unstable seem to be people hosing their machines by
getting in out of their depth, and generally bodging stuff.
A
Reply to: