Hi, I have have been using Debian for a couple of months and I am happy with how it runs.
As a new user I wonder about stable vs unstable. I often get in trouble because I need to compile software that for instance depends on libc6 or a newer versions of GTK. The result is that I have been updating parts of my system to be able to run certain applications. So my question is: Does unstable mean you will have all kinds of crashes and unexpected behavior, or does it mean that some programs might have more bugs than running in the stable distribution? I mean, if unstable means it has as many bugs as Windows, "the whole world" could actually be tricked into using it ;) (see: MS Market policies). But I assume higher standards here, and wonder how unstable it actually would be on my box? I know stability is essentila to people using Linux as for instance web servers, and that 92% uptime is MUCH worse than 98%. But for me, a normal business user, the only thing that really conserns me is if running unstable means I often will loose data or that I will have to go back to work like I did with Win 98: 20% of my work day dealing with rebooting. It is almost too easy to do: "apt-get dist-upgrade". Should I? :) Advice would be greatly appreciated. ----------------------------------- Regards, Christian Dysthe Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.bigfoot.com/~cdysthe ICQ 3945810 Date: 22-Apr-99 Time: 18:06:29 This message was sent by XFmail Powered by Debian GNU/Linux -----------------------------------
