Re: Another "testing" vs "unstable" question
On 2004-06-21, Michael Satterwhite penned:
>
> 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.
I'm not here to promote Debian. I'm trying to help someone understand
the ramifications of their actions so that they don't waste time setting
up a system that doesn't meet their needs.
Whether or not I'm trying to promote Debian, my statement is true. The
stable distro is released as a complete entity, with all of the packages
and their interactions having been tested by thousands of people over
the course of many months. It gets old, but it's rock-solid. As you
introduce new packages to the mix in the form of backports, source
installs, etc, you introduce risk, because these interactions haven't
been tested as thoroughly as the stable distribution itself. These
risks go up exponentially when you move into testing or unstable.
Pick novelty or stability. It's a spectrum; you can't have both. I
choose to run unstable, but I also recognize the risks inherent in doing
so.
> Others here, however, are doing a much better job.
You're entitled to your opinion.
--
monique
Reply to: