Re: testing or unstable?
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 5:02 AM, Rodolfo Medina
<rodolfo.medina@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've been using Debian for more than three years now, but always using the
> official DVDs of the most current stable version: first Sarge, and then Etch.
>
> Recently, many times I've been needing to use a testing/unstable Debian version
> for many applications that were too old in stable Debian, so now I'm thinking
> of switching to a testing/unstable Debian version for good.
>
> Now, my question is: which one is more advisable, testing or unstable?
>
> Excuse the basicness of my question, thanks for any reply
> Rodolfo
You have a lot of good advice to go on. I just wanted to add one more
thing to think about, which may or may not be an issue for you. For a
time I ran Sid (unstable) and I found the pace of updates somewhat
exhausting. The someone more relaxed pace of testing updates
(currently, testing is Squeeze) was more to my liking. Of course,
stable (currently, Lenny) only gets security updates from here on, so
the pace is very relaxed there. :-)
Many people have no problem with doing updates daily or nearly that
frequently. I don't like to be updating quite so often, and I don't
like it taking very long when I do it. Sid always has a lot of
updates ... always. You have to decide for you yourself what you're
most comfortable with.
I have been using Lenny for about a year, ever since I dropped down
from Sid, and never had any problems. But I will be sticking with
Lenny until Squeeze seems to be settling into a groove. I don't think
right now is the ideal time for most of us who aren't pretty advanced
users to be messing with the testing or unstable branches.
Michael M.
--
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within
limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add
'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's
will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
--Thomas Jefferson
Reply to: