On Sun, 9 Jan 2005, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Sun, 09 Jan 2005, Holger Levsen wrote: > > unstable is described as suited for "...laptops and desktops on > > non-critical > > systems..." > > testing is described as "... can be used for desktop systems that need more > > stability..." > > > > I think this both is wrong. Unstable and testing should not be described as > > suited for desktops - they are development branches of debian, which are > > likely to break, which break and... so on. Most of you know :) > > Agreed. Unstable is recommended only for people that "know what they are > doing". Certainly not for desktop usage, or anything like that. > > As for "testing", well, that one can be recommended to users that need a > very up-to-date system but who can tolerate the lack of speedy security > updates... AND who know how to deal with ocasional breakage (yes, sometimes > it happens even in testing). >
Personally I have had much more problems with testing then with unstable in the past. When its not near freeze large packages (gnome/kde mainly) tend to migrate partly and it can take a VERY long time for them to become usable once this happens, also when problem do get through they can take weeks to be fixed (as oposed to days/hours in unstable). I am using unstable very happily for a desktop and except for the ocasional program which got broken for a day or two (very rare) the only things that get broken are my fault due to setup experiments that should have never been tried in the first place. > > good ol' "debian releases to seldom" argument...) - but as said I don't > > think > > Debian should propagate this misconcepts. > > Agreed. > >
