Early adopters bloodied by Ubuntu's Karmic Koala

D. Hugh Redelmeier hugh-pmF8o41NoarQT0dZR+AlfA at public.gmane.org
Fri Nov 6 21:16:43 UTC 2009

| From: Thomas Milne <tbrucemilne-TcoXwbchSccMMYnvST3LeUB+6BGkLq7r at public.gmane.org>

| Running a mixed Testing and Unstable system, I've never experienced
| one single serious breakage.

With Ubuntu, you are directed to run the latest version, with updates,
or the latest LTS version, with updates.  That seems pretty simple.

Whenever people recommend Debian, the recipe seems more complicated.

Simple version:

- Run stable is you want stability (and movement at the rate of tectonic

- Run testing even though it may be unsafe.  Really, it is supposed to
  be almost safe.

- Run unstable if you "like to live on the edge"

The actual recommendation from people I trust is  "run some mixture of these".

How is one to know what mixture to run?  It seems like it would be a
lot of work to figure this out correctly.

Oh, and another confusion: at any one time, stable and testing each
have a name (of a character from Toy Story).  When a new stable
release is released, the name of the old "testing" becomes the name of
the new stable.  But unstable is always called Sid.  So new name is
invented for testing.  At least I think that is how it works.

I don't run Debian mostly because I don't know what mixture to run and
I don't have to decide this with the distros I do use (CentOS, Fedora,
and Ubuntu).

Continuous (as opposed to discontinuous) updating is attractive.
Lennart seems to say that works with Debian, even when a new version
becomes stable or testing.  But Lennart seems to be capable of easily
solving problems that others find daunting.
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists

More information about the Legacy mailing list