-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Monday 21 June 2004 15:44, Chris Metcalf wrote: > 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 *THINK* I'm convinced on this one. Actually, Debian's tools make updates (almost) painless; by far the easiest update tools I've seen on any distro. I *DO* think that SuSE's Yast is a great configuration tool, but apt is in a league of it's own. While there have been a couple of people who (unintended, I'm sure) actually gave logical reasons *NOT* to use Debian, most of the replies have been very good; I learned quite a bit about updates. Thanks to all! > 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. Very good example. Some machines absolutely *HAVE* to be up 24/7. For the most part, I can live with those machines having older software. Other machines can have a little instability without causing major problems. Thanks again to everyone who responded -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFA11nBjeziQOokQnARAqmNAJ4jR/S6vEGsEd/YeyezPyA1wtq4ugCgoC2g 9t0y7TIG+4b5dvsctXhEsi8= =ynKC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----