Another "testing" vs "unstable" question
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----