Another "testing" vs "unstable" question

[Michael Satterwhite <michael@weblore.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I've been watching the various discussions on this, and note that most 
experienced types think that the unstable distribution is better than the 
testing distribution. This leads me to one more question / observation

A few weeks ago (I don't know about now), the KDE distribution in unstable 
simply would not run. I've noted several of the messages recommending the 
unstable branch say that there were some updates that caused the receiving 
machines to crash / lock / not start.

How does one recover from something like this short of doing a reload? For 
that matter, a reload should crash the same way as it's getting the same 
software. I may be missing something - quite likely, BTW, I'll admit total 
ignorance here - but it would appear that it wouldn't take many of these 
incidents to make the testing branch seem A LOT better than unstable.

Other than this, the arguments for the unstable over testing seem valid.

Thanks in advance
- ---Michael

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFA1bfDjeziQOokQnARAsv1AJ9xQkN0nPkSBgSZidCMqn9XbdCTgACfWqK0
jsLHolZ6B9tOs0UN7Z7/LqM=
=XfHB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----