"David Z Maze" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Jacob Anawalt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> I was under the impression that the progression from "most reliable" > >> to "most chaotic" was Stable -> Testing -> Unstable. Is that not so? > > > > So was I. It is not so (or so I've been told and my experiance backs > > this up.) Unstable has been fine for my desktop for over a month > > now. > > (Note that it has been known to break, and quite dramatically. Just > because it's been good recently doesn't mean that there isn't going to > be a random catastrophic failure in the future. :-)
Point taken, and as has been suggested, it may be a good idea to do a 'dry-run' of apt-get to see if it's going to remove stuff, if it does find out why before installing. For me, depending on the seriousness of catastrophic, I have chosen to live with unstable for my desktop with the chance of a serious problem than to live with testing for my desktop where (last month) the fonts are difficult to read, I don't have a control panel to manage my desktop environment, I get an error message about missing components each time I log into my desktop window manager session and terminal based apps don't launch from the normal menu (gnome2). So, IMO (since this was a call for opinions) Woody vs. Sarge, Woody wins at the moment. Woody vs Sid, well Sid may have a box of fireworks but for now he suits me. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
