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

["Claus Aranha" <caranha@example.com>]

On 8/14/07, Charles Muller <acmuller@example.com> wrote:
> 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
>
> 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?

I have not ran testing yet, but I have an unstable box at home, and a
stable box in my lab. Other than the Xim+Anthy configuration breaking
every now and then, I don't feel I experience a lot of breakage in
unstable.

-- 
Claus Aranha
http://claus.castelodelego.org