Hi all, My foray into Fedora has come to a close and I am returning to the debian and debian-derived fold.
I'd run stable before and found it too stable. So, I was thinking of running testing. Then, to my surprise, I found that the debian FAQ recommends unstable over testing <http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/ch-choosing.en.html>. The major reason seems to be that problems can persist in testing longer than they will in stable. Pulling in the other direction is that according to the debian security FAQ, unstable doesn't receive security attention but testing does: <http://www.debian.org/security/faq#unstable> and <http://www.debian.org/security/faq#testing>. I'd expect that this would be mitigated by debian security offering their security fixes to the various upstreams which would, in theory, result in them showing up in unstable in short order. Is that how it tends to work? So, I'm a bit confused about which to choose. Advice? As I've already downloaded a stable live CD, my plan was to install that, then update the repos to point at testing, and possibly once again to point at unstable. So, unless I misunderstand the way things work, I can try testing for a while and then go to unstable if desired. (I do understand that testing -> unstable is largely a one-way journey.) Does that install plan sound sound to those with experiencing running other than stable debian? Thanks and best, Brian vdB _______________________________________________ mlug mailing list [email protected] https://listes.koumbit.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mlug-listserv.mlug.ca
