Re: Another "testing" vs "unstable" question
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 21 June 2004 15:44, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> 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 *THINK* I'm convinced on this one. Actually, Debian's tools make updates
(almost) painless; by far the easiest update tools I've seen on any distro. I
*DO* think that SuSE's Yast is a great configuration tool, but apt is in a
league of it's own.
While there have been a couple of people who (unintended, I'm sure) actually
gave logical reasons *NOT* to use Debian, most of the replies have been very
good; I learned quite a bit about updates.
Thanks to all!
> 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.
Very good example. Some machines absolutely *HAVE* to be up 24/7. For the most
part, I can live with those machines having older software. Other machines
can have a little instability without causing major problems.
Thanks again to everyone who responded
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFA11nBjeziQOokQnARAqmNAJ4jR/S6vEGsEd/YeyezPyA1wtq4ugCgoC2g
9t0y7TIG+4b5dvsctXhEsi8=
=ynKC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: