On 27-06-2021 18:01, Joe wrote: > On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 08:12:07 -0500 > John Hasler <j...@sugarbit.com> wrote: > >> Andrei writes: >> > Unstable is challenging when you rely on that system for any kind of >> > useful work, regardless if a movie night with friends or a big >> > presentation at work, as each and every upgrade has the potential to >> > break your system in new and interesting ways. >> >> I've run Unstable on my desktop for decades. It's been at least 15 >> years since an upgrade gave me any serious trouble. However, I don't >> use a desktop environment (unless you call FVWM a DE) and I only >> upgrade when it is both safe and necessary. >> >> I did recently have a problem with an Exim4 upgrade but I believe it >> was primarily due to my customizations (I switched to Postfix as >> that's the simplest way to do "wipe it all out and start over"). > > I've had a logjam for most of a year on a few items which can't be > upgraded because of an odd dependency issue involving guile-2.0 and 2.2. > > Yesterday, I had a need for inkscape, which I rarely use and which could > only be installed by removing half a dozen programs I use much more > often. So I put it on my stable netbook instead. When I'm sufficiently > annoyed with the problem I'll do a reinstall but there are over 4000 > packages and if I do an automatic reinstall it will probably just > recreate the same problem. > > I think unstable is fine if you have an alternative computer, > (basically, owning a computer is fine if you have an alternative > computer) but by itself can occasionally mess things up.
I've used Unstable for many years as a reliable base for a small business, and it rarely lets me down in any serious way. I switched to it after experiencing slow bug fixes on Testing. Occasionally one programme or another may get a little flighty, but it doesn't affect the rest of the system, and is always fixed within 24 hours. I wouldn't think of moving. Cheers! Harry. -- `When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty' -- Thomas Jefferson