* Ignatz Sol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040602 19:40]: > > I hadn't thought of using unstable. I'm learning on woody stable, > though I have pulled a few components from backports.org. What do you > mean "it doesn't break much"?
I can't speak for the original poster, but my experience is that debian unstable is roughly as unstable as most commercial distributions. Because it is cutting edge, every once in awhile there is a problem, but the problems get taken care of within a few days. Debian stable, on the other hand, is rock solid. Unless you really need something that isn't in stable, you may want to stay with stable. When sarge becomes stable (real soon now), you can upgrade your woody machines to it. But if you find yourself continually wanting to install software that depends on libraries in unstable, you might want to bite the bullet and see what unstable is like. -- Lance Simmons
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
