On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 04:56:04PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > 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.
That's a nonsense statement. Whether or not something is "up-to-date" has zero to do with whether or not it's more or less "buggy". Witness the current sysvinit fun in unstable. You expect your average cluebie to even understand the problem, let alone how to go about fixing it? Fortunately the maintainer is right on top of that one, but how many cluebies read d-u? Before that, we had the mis-handled Xorg transition. Myself, I simply didn't allow the packages to install until the dust settled... but that same average cluebie isn't going to do that even if he understands *how* to do that. People who immediately pipe up with "I haven't had any real breakage" do these cluebies a great disservice. *You* haven't had any real breakage because your definition of "real breakage" doesn't match his. If you are not prepared to reconstruct the box from a smoking hole in the ground on a daily basis, then you should not be using unstable. 'Nuff said. -- Marc Wilson | Q: What's buried in Grant's tomb? A: A corpse. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
