Antoine Le Gonidec <[email protected]> writes: > In my 15 years of user support, a huge majority of reported problems > were with testing. But the sample might be biased by testing being the > one chosen by less experienced users, wrongly thinking it would be some > kind of middle ground between stable and unstable.
I think so, but of course I don't really know. All I want to be sure the original poster realizes is that if you use unstable, your system *will* break sometimes in ways that you will have to manually fix. I have a pretty light footprint on a system and things tend to weirdly break less for me than for other people, and I still have to semi-manually unbreak something at least a couple of times a year. (I also run a testing system and have basically never had a problem with it, but this is just one possibly unrepresentative data point.) If you know how to do the things that I mentioned, unstable can be a great experience. I've used unstable on some of my systems for something like 20 years now. But I'm pretty unphased by having to manually clean up something or file a bug report and downgrade a package. -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
