> > Next: There's plenty of reason to run unstable (at least everyone I know > that runs debian on their desktop thinks so). I normally don't have any > problems with my (stable) unstable box. I had NOT problems, too - unstable usually works fine > > Against stable: Stable is nice, and I pray release rates are speeded up > after the fuzz about stable. But 3 years is simply too long on my > desktop. I tried backporting, never liked it. this was always problem - decide between backporting or upgrade.. :/ > > Against testing: Testing is (in a bad way) in between stable and > testing. It seems there's no real consensus at to when packages arrive > in testing, so some part of the system is almost as old as stable and > others are as unstable as unstable. > Testing is more unstable the unstable itself .. it is because of "testing" means "during the freeze process" && unstable means "unsecure but working" - however who of us wants "the safest audio station on world" ;) my experience from Debian is, that it works out-of-the-box, however .... there are many little troubles and if you want to go to realtime kernel && audio apps, you can reach big number of little troubles very soon ... :/ that is the reason why I am now tuning Gentoo.... seems to be really faster, more stable with "strange work parameters" like realtime processing... and the only problem is - if somebody wants it - to have just fast processor / emerge process can run 1-2 days of course - no offence for Debian, I still love it for philosophy && really user-friendly, clear and smart system. -- Piotr
