Derek, I've been running Sid for years, happily, continually updating and sending in the odd bug report.
I believe you have "experimental" confused with "unstable". Experimental is where packages are first sent, to be checked against all the builds and dependencies, and see if it plays nice at all. Sarge is only "testing" until declared stable. Then "testing" goes off into the stratosphere, gets a new label, and there is nothing to ensure that it will even be self-compatible, much less functional, for an unforseeable time. Sid is, yes, "unstable". But Debian Unstable is a far sight more reliable and workable than most other distributions mainstream are. I've had difficulties, but the only time Debian was completely disfunctional in my experience was when I tried to run "testing" during the 6 months after a new stable had been released. Curt- > On Tuesday 26 October 2004 13:56, Curt Howland wrote: > > Unstable has the latest kernels, which I took from his note to be > > a prerequisite. It also works quite well. It's "unstable" aspect > > merely means that updates aught to be done carefully and > > manually. If it doesn't work well for you, such is life. On Tuesday 26 October 2004 14:21, Derek Broughton was heard to say: > That's completely backwards. First, Testing IS Sarge, and is going > to be so for the foreseeable future. Second, once Sarge goes > stable, Testing will still be a good deal more stable than > Unstable/Sid. Sid is routinely broken, nothing is supposed to > reach Testing until the problems are worked out of Sid. I agree > Sid works quite well. But it's a darn sight chancier than Testing. > > -- > derek -- September 11th, 2001 The proudest day for gun control and central planning advocates in American history -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
