steve stipulated, > >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?
> Unstable means that at any time a package could be a show stopper. Show > stopper being, "Got a rescue disk?" ... > Unstable, for the most part, is stable. I followed it from Hamm frozen > through the first stages of potato with only that one problem. The thing is, > when things break, they *can* break bad and you need to have the knowledge > and skill to back out of the updates and repair the system. IE, it is called > unstable for a reason, use some common sense, and ride it at your own risk. > ;) It seems to depend heavily on what day you do an update :) I used unstable from .9 through bo without major problems. Hamm gave me a couple of hard-core show-stoppers, and slink rendered the machine unusable about every other month. I've given up on running unstable. For that matter, slink is still a little cranky. It shut off servies in inetd.conf without asking, and we're having lpd troubles on both machines (we seem to get a random number of lpd daemons, in the 0-2 range). --
