On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 09:14:20AM +0200, Sebastiaan wrote: > For ordinairy desktop use I use Testing. Most packages are relatively > up-to-date (although some packages are out for a year but not in testing). > If I need an up-to-date package, I found it's always relatively easy to > recompile it yourself. Testing barely crashes, it's perfectly suitable for > desktop usage. The only problem with testing is that a package upgrade > doesn't always go smooth (incompatabilities, dependencies), but usually > the next upgrade fixes those problems. > > Unstable I don't use, so I don't have experience with it. All I know from > the list is that unstable is often broken, leads sometimes to a complete > unworkable system and a lot of Debian package and Linux knowlegde is often > required to fix this.
Again, the misconception rears it's head. For a lot of the time testing may well be / is less usable than unstable. I really think that this fact needs to be appropriately documented somewhere. Perhaps I'll raise a bug report. Often problems with unstable seem to be people hosing their machines by getting in out of their depth, and generally bodging stuff. A -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
