Christian Kastner <c...@kvr.at> writes: > This is both out of convenience (I want my workstation to be based on > stable) and precisely because of the afforded isolation.
I personally specifically want my workstation to be running unstable, so I'm watching to see if that's considered unsafe (either, immediately, today, or in theory, in the future). If I have to use a stable host, I admit I will be sad. I've been using unstable for my personal client and development (not server, never exposing services to the Internet) systems for well over a decade (and, before, that, testing systems for as long as I've been working on Debian) and for me it's a much nicer experience than using stable. It also lets me directly and practically dogfood Debian, which has resulted in a fair number of bug reports. (This is an analysis specific to me, not general advice, and relies heavily on the fact that I'm very good at working around weird problems that transiently arise in unstable.) But this does come with a security risk because it means a compromised package could compromise my system much faster than if I were using testing or, certainly, stable. That's not a security trade-off that I can responsibly make entirely for myself, since it affects people who are using Debian as well. So I don't get to have the final decision here. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
