On 2006-09-08 13:58:15 +0200, Jochen Schulz wrote: > Jordi Carrillo: > > > > I'm using Debian testing and I was thinking about switching to > > unstable. Is Debian unstable, stable enough for a Desktop system? > > No, if you rely on your system to be available 100% (time and function > wise). No, if you don't (know how to) use the BTS, dpkg, apt, package > documentation. If you don't know how to upgrade (and cannot find out > except by asking here), take that as a sign that unstable is not stable > enough for you. > > Yes if you have fun living on the edge. Yes, if you have enough time on > your hands to fix a breakage now and then. Yes, if you take regular > backups of your important data.
I've been using unstable for a few years, and haven't had any real breakage. It may happen that some package no longer works for a few days and it may be difficult to revert to the previous version, but at least, one has up-to-date software (compared to Debian stable), hence less buggy in general. Concerning testing vs unstable, I've a PowerPC machine under testing (+ some unstable packages when need be) and an x86 machine under unstable. And there's not much difference. Both of them have some transitory problems. > > Are there broken dependencies in unstable? > > Yes, sometimes. But that usually just means that you have to wait > upgrading or installing a particular package. Most of the time you > can still install an earlier version from testing or stable. I'd say fewer broken dependencies than in testing. -- Vincent Lefèvre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.org/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arenaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
