On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 18:22:06 -0400 (EDT) Thomas Pomber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Actually, I think Monique is incorrect for once. > Unstable is less stable than testing.
If by "less stable", you mean "less changing in its contents in time," then that's true. But if by "less stable", you mean "less likely to have problems that could cause you to pull your hair out . . .right now that's true, because sarge is close to release. In general, it ain't necessarily so. KDE was uninstallable out of testing for *months* this past year. And a simple archive search will find you lots of people last year making frustrated posts to debian-user because an apt-get upgrade had broken GNOME (a new version was coming down into testing, and it wasn't yet complete there); the breakage didn't get fixed for quite a while. http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2003/debian-user-200307/msg00531.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2003/debian-user-200307/msg00615.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2003/debian-user-200307/msg00693.html And it's very well documented that testing is the last distro to receive security updates. This thread got started because people were frustrated about having to explain stable vs. testing vs. unstable to new users trying Debian. But it appears to me that a lot of people with strong ideas on how to fix that don't understand the differences themselves. The web page http://www.debian.org/devel/testing explains what testing is. It isn't what many people in this thread seem to be suggesting. -c -- Chris Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (remove "snip-me." to email) "As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I have become civilized." - Chief Luther Standing Bear
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
