Patrick Lane wrote: > Some of us using unstable use it because we have to. That is, we have to > if we want to run Debian. For example, I installed unstable for XF86 > 4.2. w/o it, I had to do a mickey mouse work-around to get my xserver to > start, which to me is way worse.
Hmm. Admittedly, the X packages are complex and numerous, but even so, is it really not possible to install unstable X packages on testing? > I think your point of view on people running unstable only if they can > fix these 'basic' problems that arise is foolhearty. The word is "foolhardy", and with respect, I suggest you look up its meaning before using it again. I don't think it applies here. Perhaps you meant "foolish", but if so, I disagree. > The more people > using unstable, the more bugs that are found, reported, and eventually > fixed for future stable releases. You seem to be ignoring the existence of the testing branch, which exists precisely for this purpose, and is considerably safer for the average user. Sure, it's great for as many people as possible to use testing and unstable, but I don't think it would be responsible to suggest that people use a distribution (or branch thereof) that requires more skills than they have. If someone isnn't ready to deal with bizarre system problems, possibly without help, then that person probably shouldn't run unstable. By the same token, if you don't know how to drive with a manual transmission, best to stick with an automatic unless you really want to learn and are ready to do so. Craig -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
