Isn't this perhaps the problem? I've been trying to get to grips
with debian for years and I haven't ventured outside stable. I
still feel out of my depth and - no offence meant, honestly -
you're obviously out of your depth and you shouldn't think you
have the right to demand answers to all your questions.
Why not get some experience with sarge? If it hasn't got what you
want, try another distribution or go back to Windows?
I do understand well what you are saying. That is why I waited so long to say I had Sid: I knew this would happen.
Allow me to answer.
I have Sid because it has things that are new and Shiny. I am compulsive in that way, using Synaptic to see if there are any upgrades available many, many times daily. I have read many things and found (in general) the following to be true (which was backed up by a computer-savvy acquaintance of mine): Stable is for Servers (those who need a STABLE system. I do believe that Debian Stable is one of the most stable O.
S.s available.), Testing fine (indeed!) for most, Unstable not really unstable at all. Minus the things that are currently happening (getting over the shift to Xorg, updating KDE and things that go along with it), unstable is really the Debian Definition. For the average computer fellow, he won't notice any glitches. So, why not have the newest and best?
And, besides, maybe I'll find a bug some day and get to report it (or, at least, give it to some one who will report it properly). I've probably learnt more from using Sid than from using Testing or Stable combined.
Windows? Simply, I'm hooked on Linux.
Recap: I'll stick with Sid, understanding that things may be harder to resolve and that some may be less willing. And, I won't use Windows if I can help it. But, verily, I do comprehend what you are saying; fear not that your message has gone un-heeded.