On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Joel Schneider wrote: > On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 01:35:11PM -0600, Clay Fandre wrote: > > I have been running unstable on my desktops, testing on > > my internal servers, and stable on my external servers for years > > without any major problems. > > Interesting to read that "stable" may be useful for something. My > impression was that most debian-philes were using either "unstable" or > "testing". > > In case anyone's interested or curious, here's a short summary of a > recent bitter experience I had with debian. Being cautious and/or > ignorant, I installed "stable" (woody). Later I decided Mozilla 1.0 > was really lame and did "apt-get -t unstable install mozilla" to get > Mozilla 1.4. Apt proceeded to de-install KDE and then horked in the > middle of the install (don't recall exactly why), leaving me with no KDE > and no Mozilla. This experience left me unimpressed, so my next system > will most likely not run Debian GNU/Apache/Perl/MySQL/OpenSSH/Linux. > OpenBSD is starting to look good ... > > Dependencies. Trust me, you _don't_ want to mix stable and unstable packages. It is like trying to install a RH9 package on RH7, or worse. -- Daniel Taylor dante at argle.org Forget diamonds, Copyright is forever. _______________________________________________ TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.mn-linux.org tclug-list at mn-linux.org https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list