On Wednesday 12 December 2001 11:25 pm, Kurt Lieber wrote: [snip] > Honestly, I'd recommend skipping testing and going straight to unstable. > Despite the name, unstable is quite acceptable as a desktop machine. I > wouldn't run it as a server, but I wouldn't run testing on a server, > either. Testing has too many dependency conflicts that don't get resolved > in a timely fashion because of the way testing works. Testing really isn't > meant for human consumption, IMO. When unstable has problems, they're > generally resolved within a day or two. > > I had more problems running testing than I've had since I've moved to Sid. > YMMV, however. > > hth > > --kurt
i absolutely unhesitatingly agree with this. i've used debian for just over a month. where the first two weeks, using testing/woody, were extremely frustrating and unsatisfying, since going straight to unstable/sid, pretty much everything works as well as i ever wanted. the fact that issues in unstable are taken care of quickly makes all the difference. also, this is without a doubt the best user list i have ever come across, and using unstable is the best way to get the most out of it. debian, and especially unstable, is a trip well worth taking.
