loos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [snip rant against "testing"]
> I just totally agree with you. A little difference, I switch my > production machines (stable) to testing somewhere during the "frozen" > time (of course using testing real name. I prefer having a manual > control on the oldstable->newstable update. I am around since ham and > this worked without problems for me. I agree. The fixed names are much better. There was a thread here a while back (6 months, a year?) about making the default be a fixed name like "woody", "sarge" or "etch", rather than "stable". I think that would be a much better default. > My desktops use unstable. As are mine. Sid is pretty solid for me so far. I can recover from most of the mishaps. But at work I do worry since I could lose hard if things go really badly. I guess that's why they make stable. But that's so boring ;-). > The problem is always the same: Newbies don't understand the sense of > the word "unstable" as used by Debian. > In fact they lack understanding what a distribution is, and therefore > what a stable (or unstable) distribution is. Exactly. I was using "testing" for a while and got tired of losing when a package broke and wouldn't get fixed for ages. Of course, a savvy user could default to testing and drag in unstable (with whatever pre-reqs) whenever a breakage occured. Perhaps this method could be made more known. -- Johan KULLSTAM -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
