Rodolfo Medina wrote: > I've been using Debian for more than three years now, but always using the > official DVDs of the most current stable version: first Sarge, and then Etch. > > Recently, many times I've been needing to use a testing/unstable Debian > version > for many applications that were too old in stable Debian, so now I'm thinking > of switching to a testing/unstable Debian version for good. > > Now, my question is: which one is more advisable, testing or unstable?
All my non-critical work stations run unstable. This way I get the newest stuff. I tried to run testing for a while, but when bugs creep in, it sometimes took two weeks for them to creep out. With unstable, I run the risk of bugs creeping in more often, but they also tend to creep out within a day. And the unstable branch is still more stable (yes, I know, I'm mixing the meanings of the terms) than Windows. I think in about ten years I've only been bitten once by a serious bug, and even that worked itself out in about two days. (Just stagger the updates of your various boxes, so you always have at least one box that doesn't get horked.) -- Kent West <")))>< Westing Peacefully - http://kentwest.blogspot.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org