[SlugLUG] Help Me Choose

[Rohan Sheth]

> Having said that, Ubuntu is not that bad. They also have their unstable 
> branch (maybe it's not called unstable), which you can subscribe (apt) to.

True they make the next release's branch avaliable.  But it is
considered extremely experimental and dependencies are usually broken
in it.  Therefore I am a bit wary to jump into it.  I also subscribe
to the Ubuntu package update list and during the month in between a
release very few packages are uploaded into the experimental
branch...but now that a release is closing in I have seen 100's of
packages a day being updated.

--Rohan


On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 12:47:22 -0700
Ignacio Solis <isolis at igso.net> wrote:

> Rohan Sheth wrote:
> > What I need help with is deciding testing vs. unstable.
> 
> Unstable, hands down.  Unstable doesn't mean it crashes, it means that 
> the package pool is unstable because it's constantly changing. Once you 
> do an aptitude dist-upgrade your system will not change, so it's up to 
> you to decide how "unstable" unstable is.
> 
> Unstable doesn't break that often. And when it does people figure it out 
> pretty soon. so, if you're a little bit afraid, just log on to #debian 
> at freenode or oftc and ask if unstable is broken at the time.  Most of 
> the time it's not.
> 
> I never check and I've never had anything really go wrong. ... or should 
> I say, seriously wrong.  A couple of weeks ago I had to reinstall some 
> packages because the init scripts were broken on one update and didn't 
> recreate some links for a couple of packages.  Anyway, nothing that 3 
> apt commands didn't fix.
> 
> Testing doesn't really give you that much. It has more dependency 
> problems (cause things get held in unstable) and can potentially break 
> like unstable. It's always behind and it's sometimes relatively stale 
> (i.e. as we near a release).
> 
> Having said that, Ubuntu is not that bad. They also have their unstable 
> branch (maybe it's not called unstable), which you can subscribe (apt) to.
> 
> > Oh yea, if anyone wishes to know, my reason for not using gentoo this
> > time around is that I really really don't want to wait 2 hours for xorg
> > to compile =P
> 
> 2 hours? That was a fast machine :-)
> 
> Nacho
> _______________________________________________
> Sluglug mailing list
> Sluglug at sluglug.ucsc.edu
> http://sluglug.ucsc.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sluglug