On Wednesday 08 Oct 2014 10:24:59 Leo wrote:
> I use Arch on my laptop and it takes some maintenance when I upgrade
> (e.g. merging configs, fixing package clashes), and I was wondering how
> it compared to Debian Unstable? Has anyone used both; does Debian
> Unstable require more/less/similar amount of maintenance to Arch?
I can't comment on Arch, but plenty of people have used Debian testing or
Debian unstable (Sid) as their desktop system for many years.
Testing is slightly more stable, I've used it for years, BUT doesn't get
security updates as quickly as unstable or stable.
Unstable does break more often that testing but that isn't as often as you'd
think. Plenty of people find it's fine for a desktop.
Both are probably best managed by running aptitude updates daily, and safe-
upgades fairly regularly (e.g. weekly) but you need to watch what is being
upgraded as sometime bits of it stops working. On the Wheezy cycle I lost X
for a week, but that was all. On the current Jessie cycle nothings broken at
all yet.
I probably won't run unstable or testing on a server.
--
Adam Trickett
Overton, HANTS, UK
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education.
-- Albert Einstein
--
Please post to: Hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk
Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire
LUG URL: http://www.hantslug.org.uk
--------------------------------------------------------------
