Re: Another "testing" vs "unstable" question
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 04:37:12PM -0400, Carl Fink wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 02:35:32PM -0500, Kent West wrote:
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> Sure, but the apropos comparison is against SuSE or Mandrake or
> something, not Windows. At least IMO.
>
Don't know whats their state now after they all adopted the apt
methodology, but it used to be near to impossible to upgrade those
systems. I used to run mandrake at work about two years ago and it took
me less then a month to break it in a way that needed resinstalling.
My previous computer running debian unstable ran fine for over six
years with constant upgrades (until I stopped using it and it moved to
my girlfriend who can't get used to linux). Actually it was an
installation that migrated between two computers and three different
hard-drives (went from 486 to PIII with no problem), not to mention the
exotic hardware it ran along the years.
> Mind you, tracking Testing for the past two years I've had one
> significant problem (the KDE thing) which was only a difficulty at
> all in that I couldn't use Konqueror for a few weeks.
> --
> Carl Fink carl@fink.to
> Jabootu's Minister of Proofreading
> http://www.jabootu.com
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> This Mail Was Scanned By Mail-seCure System
> at the Tel-Aviv University CC.
>
Reply to: