I also have been running "unstable" for a long time now without problem.
I would say it's the way to go for a non critical personal / hobby use
machine that has a fast net connection (those update/upgrades are
usually many tens of MB). In the rare instance (in my experience) where
anything does go bad, chances are it will be fixed very quickly, or it
provides a chance to dig into your system and learn a bit about how
things work together. Another thing to remember is that you don't have
to upgrade every day. If you like the way your system is working, you
could keep it in that state as long as you wish - for as long as your
machine will run if you wish. I usually upgrade every month or so just
for the sake of it.
scott
Levi Bard wrote:
>>Unstable is bleeding edge. Things will break. One day you'll find out that X
>>doesn't work, since version 4.3 was just put into the archive. Actually, kde
>>3.1 was recently put into unstable, and it was news! Unstable is where new
>>software is put in for the first time. When this happens, it usually breaks
>>something. At some point, when broken things are fixed for new software, it
>>goes into testing.
>>
>>
>
>I have to say, though, I've been using unstable for at least 3 years, and I haven't had any major breaks yet. However, just like with Slimfast[tm], some results may be atypical and not all users will have a similar experience.
>
>Levi
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 16:42:20 EDT