On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Florin Andrei wrote: > On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 16:58 -0400, seth vidal wrote: > > > I've found that "install everything" is an extraordinarily bad > > idea if you want to have a continually working system. > > I'm amazed by how few people are aware of this. Although, at least > IMO, it's counterintuitive, no? i think you could make the argument that *both* techniques have potential flaws. certainly, more software means more potential bugs. on the other hand, some folks might be nervous about being selective in their choice of software and choose an "everything" install because they think it's *safer*, and they're not taking a chance on leaving out something critical and introducing a possible dependency error. depending on how you look at it, the argument works both ways. anyway, my initial point was that it made sense to an "everything" install in *this* case because the whole point is to stress test a pre-release. rday