On Mon, 2003-10-20 at 21:32, Colin Watson wrote: > On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 04:55:16PM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote: > > Marc Wilson wrote: > > >Feh. Why do these people think they should be running unstable? > > > > perhaps because it's the only usable debian distro/version? the > > stable is too old for desktops... testing is even worse than unstable... > > I run testing quite happily on my work desktop, and used to run stable > on it until I got bored of putting up with bugs that I'd fixed months > ago. > > With the exception of KDE, testing's not all that far behind these days. > > Cheers, > > -- > Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I would concur - Testing (Sarge) is quite solid, and has been since I first started using "Frozen" several years back. I do keep an eye on bug reports and security alerts, and whenever something is quirky and not otherwise reported as a bug, I ask here first in case I'm doing something wrong (always a possibility) and then if no solution arises, document as well as possible and submit a bug. I'd do the same if I was running Stable (Woody) or Unstable (Sid). To the OP - just remember, however, that Woody is about as up-to-date as Windows XP, but vastly more reliable. Unstable is bleeding edge, but, well, still more stable than XP ;) -- Mark L. Kahnt, FLMI/M, ALHC, HIA, AIAA, ACS, MHP ML Kahnt New Markets Consulting Tel: (613) 531-8684 / (613) 539-0935 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
