If I remember correctly, "unstable" is called "unstable" because the packages go through a large amount of turnover and you'll usually have to upgrade a few times per week to keep your system in sync.
In my experience, "unstable" is actually very stable for my desktop uses. And its a whole lot easier to keep up-to-date than RPM based distros. Debian's idea of a "stable" system is a lot more strict than many other distros. I run "testing" on my servers, and generally only have to run an upgrade once a week to update a few packages. When I ran "stable", I only had to upgrade extremely rarely when a security patch came out. Chris M. On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 14:38:51 -0500, Michael Satterwhite <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Monday 21 June 2004 12:03, Monique Y. Mudama wrote: > > If you're trying to > > avoid any downtime or difficulty whatsoever, run stable and live with > > the age of the packages. > > Not exactly promoting Debian, are we? Especially in a Linux world where there > are so MANY choices. > > Others here, however, are doing a much better job. > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQFA1zlejeziQOokQnARAsBfAJwNt5EOBHG3rb7yzEENEk7NiXukTACePR85 > fvIRNCR6Z52mTqPFyYt/zxs= > =fKRB > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > -- Chris Metcalf [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://chrismetcalf.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
