ubuntu feisty experiences

[David Bandel]

On 12/16/06, ded <my.accountnow at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 07:23:29AM -0700, Collins Richey wrote:
[snip]
>
> I heard this a lot while I was involved in the Debian community,
> and my thought was always this...if you run unstable  you are expected
> to know how to fix things as unstable is just what the name implies.
> If you don't know how to fix things, then your best bet is stable as
> things are usually more broken in testing than they are in unstable
> (IMHO).

Well. this is the opposite of my experience.  Generally, stable is
just plain old.  Testing has been stable for me since the testing
branch was created.  I've only twice had a problem with a testing
package (result of a subsequent library change that wreaked a bit of
havoc, but fixed quickly enough -- dropping back to the previous
package has always fixed it.  Unstable, OTOH, has been broken for me
more than not and I cringe each time I update my one unstable box
(it's down more than not until I or the developers fix something).

Ciao,

David A. Bandel
-- 
Focus on the dream, not the competition.
            - Nemesis Air Racing Team motto