Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
Indeed. I actually meant my statement to be in support of the stable distribution. I guess I should have made that clearer. Still, no one benefits from having blinders over their eyes. Stable is the most stable, and it's also the least current. I don't see how it could be any other way. They're on opposite ends of the same spectrum.
For me its lack of currency is becoming a serious problem. I'm deploying new systems: do I really want to deploy software that's not going to be supported much beyond a year? Do I really want to go through migration to new releases just after I've got it bedded down?
No I don't.My choices are going with testing: what then about security patches? or unstable? From my reading it's not unknown for unstable to be seriously borked for a time: I think new glibc did it a while ago, and gcc was forecast to do it shortly after.
If I want to support a USB Laserjet 1200, then I really need the latest hpoj stuff: Woody is far too old.
What I find myself doing increasingly is building the occasional package from Sid for Woody: sometimes it's easy, sometimes it's too much trouble (think xfree where I think I found circular dependancies).