Re: Another "testing" vs "unstable" question
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 20 June 2004 14:35, Kent West wrote:
> I run stable on my important boxes, like servers, that need to be up
> 24x7, and I run unstable on my workstations. I have less pain on
> unstable workstations with their occasional breakages than I do on
> stable workstations with their ancient package versions.
That's an interesting observation. Thanks
>And I have
> _far_ less pain on unstable workstations than on any version of
> Windows-based workstation, even those with 1 GB of RAM on a 2.0 GHz P4
> running Windows XP Professional and very little application software.
I consider Windows XP an abomination by any standard. No question there.
> Yes, unstable does indeed break sometimes, sometimes seriously so. But
> in the five or so years I've been running Debian, I've seen far less
> breakage on Debian unstable boxes than on Windows boxes (and much, much,
> much more recoverability). So if you've been able to live with Windows
> for the past few years, you can probably handle Debian unstable.
Although I've had to use Windows at some client sites, my personal machines
have been essentially MS free for over a year. Some exceptions, there - I
can't live without Quicken / Quickbooks / Final Draft.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFA1e9RjeziQOokQnARAvp9AKCmYieQN0eilOUnN+mWGNXShOI8kwCeMSmX
DgfcjwHWqgw77cNaiwH/abs=
=IqN0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: