[tlug] Testing vs. Unstable [was: UIM and KDE]

[Charles Muller <acmuller@example.com>]

Gernot Hassenpflug wrote:

> From what I understand, running 'testing' is not really preferable to
> running 'unstable': 1) security updates are far slower, 2) updates are
> slower because it is the next 'stable' release being prepared and
> there is thus a longer review of any changes. I would recommend
> 'unstable' over 'testing' if you need functionality, provided you take
> due care to not upgrade unless you know what you are going to get.

Interesting. I've never heard this opinion expressed before. My past 
experiences with running unstable have seemed to result in a lot more 
broken packages than with testing. Are there any other Debian users on 
TLUG who are of the same opinion as Gernot?

Regards,

Chuck

-------------------

Charles Muller

Toyo Gakuen University
Faculty of Humanities
1-26-3 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku
Tokyo 113-0033 JAPAN
Mobile Phone: 090-9310-1787

Web Site: Resources for East Asian Language and Thought
http://www.acmuller.net

<acmuller[at]jj.em-net.ne.jp>


#  #  #

名 非 〇
我 我 我
法 法 法
〇 是 即