On Wednesday 28 March 2001 07:42, Mark Devin wrote: > Nate Amsden wrote: > > its amazing how many people want to run unstable.. you are likely to get > > a broken system at one point or another. it may not require expert skills > > but it may be a pain. ive been using unix and linux for almost 7 years > > now and i won't go near unstable still. i'm very confident with my skills > > but don't want to get a broken system at all(which is why i like debian's > > stable tree) > > What about "testing"? Is that reasonably stable enough in your opinion, or > would I be just playing with fire? Especially given that I have > significantly less experience than you. > > Thanks. > > Mark.
>From what i have seen and people have said, they are what they say they are potatoe/stable - stable, not the lastest but just the proven woody/testing - not quite perfect yet but has most recenct things in it sid/unstable - bleeding edge, _will_ break @ some point but i'v been using testing for a couple of months now on my home machine and can not fault it except for a lilo prob at one point :/ adam sorry to mark sent him half the email, i'm not used to kmail yet :( -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
