Re: Another "testing" vs "unstable" question

["Monique Y. Mudama" <spam@bounceswoosh.org>]

On 2004-06-22, Adam Funk penned:
> On Monday 21 June 2004 22:00, 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.
>
> Now that's interesting.  The name "unstable" put me off using it.
>
>> In my experience, "unstable" is actually very stable for my desktop
>> uses. 
>
> I'll consider switching from testing to unstable now.

Unstable: "parts are frequently broken but quickly fixed"

Testing: "parts are broken less often, but when they are, it can take
months to fix them"

Stable: "nothing is broken, but you won't be able to play with the
latest gizmos unless you install from backports or source"

Choose your poison.  Note that the use of the term "frequently" in my
description of unstable is relative; I've run unstable for years and had
far fewer problems with it than I used to have with RedHat.


-- 
monique