Actually, I think Monique is incorrect for once. Unstable is less stable than testing. But it's the only way to go, in my humble opinion.
--- Anthony Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 14 Apr 2004, Monique Y. Mudama wrote: > > > [snip] > > > My understanding of the 'testing' distribution is > in conflict with your > > description. Testing is the last to receive > security updates, and I > > believe it is more prone to wide-ranging package > bugs than is unstable. > > I see it more as a developer sandbox than a live > distribution. > > > > Am I wrong? > > > > I don't know, but I hope so! :) > > I have to admit to keeping up to date with testing > for well over a year, > but lacking the courage to make more than occasional > forays into > unstable. But if you are right, perhaps I ought to > change my policy. > > Anthony > -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] || > http://www.acampbell.org.uk > using Linux GNU/Debian || for book reviews, > electronic > Windows-free zone || books and skeptical > articles > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
