Re: Another "testing" vs "unstable" question
If I remember correctly, "unstable" is called "unstable" because the
packages go through a large amount of turnover and you'll usually have
to upgrade a few times per week to keep your system in sync.
In my experience, "unstable" is actually very stable for my desktop
uses. And its a whole lot easier to keep up-to-date than RPM based
distros. Debian's idea of a "stable" system is a lot more strict than
many other distros.
I run "testing" on my servers, and generally only have to run an
upgrade once a week to update a few packages. When I ran "stable", I
only had to upgrade extremely rarely when a security patch came out.
Chris M.
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 14:38:51 -0500, Michael Satterwhite
<michael@weblore.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Monday 21 June 2004 12:03, Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
> > If you're trying to
> > avoid any downtime or difficulty whatsoever, run stable and live with
> > the age of the packages.
>
> Not exactly promoting Debian, are we? Especially in a Linux world where there
> are so MANY choices.
>
> Others here, however, are doing a much better job.
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFA1zlejeziQOokQnARAsBfAJwNt5EOBHG3rb7yzEENEk7NiXukTACePR85
> fvIRNCR6Z52mTqPFyYt/zxs=
> =fKRB
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
--
Chris Metcalf
chris@chrismetcalf.net
http://chrismetcalf.net
Reply to: