Re: sidux

[Amit Uttamchandani <atu13439@csun.edu>]

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 07:27:22 +0200
Rico Secada <coolzone@it.dk> wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:35:56 -0700
> Andrew Sackville-West <andrew@farwestbilliards.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 06:25:11PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > > Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> > > > The crucial bit that many miss is that new packages don't move
> > > > into testing unless they've sat in unstable with no new bug
> > > > reports for 10 days (I think).
> > > 
> > > Or 5 days (urgency=medium in changelog).
> > > Or 2 days (urgency=high).
> > > Or 1 day if it's a bad enough problem (urgency=emergency).
> > 
> > thanks Joey.
> > 
> > In your opinion, am I right in my assessment that testing is more
> > likely to be in an unusable state for longer than sid?  (at least at
> > the package, not system, level)?
> 
> That's contrary to my experience.
> 
> The must critical bugs gets caught before they enter into testing so in
> testing they are non-existant.
> 
> Testing are more stable and a much "safer-bet" as a desktop system than
> unstable.
> 
> At our office we run stable for our servers, but testing for our
> desktops. In the last couple of years we haven't found any problems
> what so ever running testing. It is a very stable desktop system.
> 
> > I have been making this claim for a while, but it's really only based
> > on my intuition of the situation and not any direct experience.
> > 
> > A
> > 
> 

I had the same question as the OP and this thread/post answered it.

I installed debian stabled "etch" on my desktop system. This was my first step into the linux world. I found that it was amazingly stable but the software was out of date. I found I had to compile a lot of things from source, which was good because I learned a lot!

But now for my new desktop system I am ready to migrate it into testing.

Thanks everyone.

Amit