On 8/20/2009 7:25 PM, Emanoil Kotsev wrote:
Micha Feigin wrote:On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 21:30:06 +0100 Chris Davies<chris-usenet@roaima.co.uk> wrote:Γιώργος Πάλλας<gpall@ccf.auth.gr> wrote:After returning from vacation I updated my testing, amd64 system.By the way, does anybody know why they had to break things first? I did not expect that from debian!I rather think that the name of the version you're running answers that question. If you don't want things to break, run "stable".The problem is that it's also so ancient that unless you are running a server things will be too far from current as well.What should it be so ancient?! I'm running stable on server and client and I'm not missing anything - except bugs!
I can't run stable on my workstation since it doesn't support the nic. I also do development for core 2 duo/quad and core i7 using sse and such. Things change a lot in current gcc which means I need the latest of that also. I don't recall the version of openmpi and such in stable but it's also too old. I also develop for cuda (nvidia gpu) which means I need the latest nvidia binary driver and toolchain. This means a current X.
My laptop won't run stable either (not support for almost anything), xfce is way old, lyx is several versions back, wireless is much better with current versions. hal has gone a long way so my bluetooth mouse is now properly supported.
And this only scratches the surface.On the other hand, on my server where I need a stable Apache and such I run stable (although with a backport of git as that is what the clients use ...)
so you see, I can't run stable even if I wanted to. I'm not sure if it will even install on most of my computers.
You are falling into the same hole as most and mixing the everyday meaning of debian's stable,testing and unstable with the debian distribution meaning.I don't understand this?! Debian is so flexible that almost nothing breaks - you are just missing the right parts ;-) regards