On Thu, 2003-10-16 at 09:59, Nick Rout wrote:
> debian does have lovely updating, but in stable the packages are
> somewhat older. I have never had much luck with unstable/testing, but
> your mileage will vary.

Stable (woody) is pretty darn icky, unless you're installing for a
business situation where you want the most bug-free and secure code
possible. At which point you'd install up to date versions of particular
packages (I'd suggest the woody backport of gnome2 along with updated
versions of mozilla or epiphany, evolution, and openoffice.org)

Testing is pretty reliable, and gnome2 is now in testing (I think).

Unstable is fickle, 12 months ago it was a real annoyance to use
unstable because it was unstable, however I'm running 100% unstable
debian and its fine. The only issues I've had recently is with the web
browsers. Firebird was a bit too unstable, then galeon stopped
submitting forms properly. Now I'm using evolution - it lacks the some
of the cool features of galeon but its pretty stable and works well for
me. (I dont like using plain old mozilla)


I'd suggest using testing, with the odd unstable package where needed
(say new versions of openoffice and mozilla)

Once you get the hang of debian, its configuration and package
management scheme, then its worth trying out unstable if you're after
the latest and most updated software. Or simply if you've got a good
backup and dont mind possibly breaking your system. Its hard to break if
you can RTFM and dont mind text based configuration interfaces.

Also for those who dont know much about debian, the "unstable" packages
might be considered stable by other distros, its just that they haven't
been extensively tested within the debian enviroment. Testing packages
are ones that have been in unstable for I think 2 weeks without any
major bugs reported against them, and stable packages usually have only
minor, or no bugs reported. Stable packages are also at a guess 6-12
months out of date unless there have been critical security bugs found,
and updates applied. 

-- 
Sascha Beaumont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Reply via email to