On Monday 16 June 2003 03:34, Svein E. Seldal wrote: > However, I have been running sid on my laptop for say three months now, > and it works like a charm. I've had no stability-problems at all... So > based on my experience, I'd say that sid isn't _that_ unstable. (I've > had some dependecy problems, but thats generally it.)
I think you misinterperate what "unstable" means. It does not refer to the stability of the included software as such, so unstable could be just as stable and sometimes more stable than a stock woody distribution (in my experience). Unstable refers to the distribution in general. Sometimes the distribution break. This has happened to me a few times. What this means is that sometimes a package is uploaded into sid that unfortunately break your system so for instance you can't load X at all. If you know the system you can repair the damage by downgrading packages or fixing some configuration files, but then you really have to know what you are doing. That is the key frase actually. Your programs does not crash more often in unstable. The distribution however sometimes do. Anders -- This email was generated using KMail from KDE 3.1.2 on Debian GNU/Linux
