Michael, I've been running "Unstable" for years without a problem on several different desktop machines, including a rather cutting edge Sony Vaio laptop, without many problems.
But there's the catch, of course, "many". Unstable is well named, sometimes things change. Stable is very, very stable, that's the point. "Testing" is getting ready to become the new "Stable" right now. That means that "testing" is going to be far more stable than "unstable", but still it is mostly up to date in software versions. I suggest you point yourself at "sarge" so that when it does become the new "stable" you won't find yourself pointing at "testing" as the developers begin experimenting on it again. Secure from attack is another matter entirely. It's up to you to avoid running services that you don't use, utilize ssh instead of telnet and ftp. Have your machine behind a firewall, and run packet filtering on your machine as well. Every version of Debian has been "secure" if the administrator makes it so. Curt- michael wrote: > may I ask people's views on which flavour (is that the correct > term?) of Debian out of testing & unstable is currently recommended > for a workstation (which will be used for running scientific codes, > should not crashing for months on end, is secure from hackers and > able to handle things like Fortran & C (running with MPI), Intel > compilers (don't flame me!) and, probably, NFS mounts with other > boxes in the locality) -- 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]
