I''ve been using Debian for a while now, and the only problem is that all the software packages are old. So I want to get a Debian with new stuff, like XFree86 4.3.0, GNOME 2.2, etc. Although it isn''t a big deal if my computer crashes because of it, I would like it to be at least a little bit stable. So what do you recommend? Testing or Unstable? Or should I just get the Stable version and download all the source for my stuff by myself and set it up by myself? Thanks. dumass@poppet.com

Testing. Its really annoying to install all those packages yourself. And use KDE, its much better than GNOME.

My recommendation is: if you want an really stable system and don''t mind out-of-date packages, go with the Stable repository. If you want a stable system and don''t mind using third party (normally being Debian maintainers/packagers) repositories for certain up-to-date packages, go with Stable with some back-port repositories (XFree and Gnome 2.x and such are back-ported). If you want a stable system with up-to-date stable releases of software and don''t mind the occasional uninstallable package during the repository''s ''evolution'' periods, go with Unstable (it''s called unstable because of the respository, not the software; they don''t let obviously unstable or most "in development" release software into it).

im using testing, and i like it very much. i compiled a new kernel a few days ago (2.4.21) using "kernel-package" ... good stuff.

i havent had any unexpected problems using testing.

there are ways to use the stable branch, but install packages from the testing/unstable branches (the ones you want updated). im not sure how to do this... google it, or go into irc.debian.org -> #debian ask them, they''ll help.

I got stable, and the only thing preventing me from upgrading is the fact that I like my gnome 1.4 desktop the way it is, and don''t wanna @#$@#$! it up.

From what I understand, "unstable" isn''t really all that unstable. It''s just named that because it''s (supposedly) on the bleeding edge.

The Artist Formerly Known as CmndrM

http://chaos.webhop.org

Testing is usually about 10 days behind unstable, so if anything broken gets uploaded to unstable there''s that time to fix it or take it out and not affect thoise running testing.

The major problem with testing is that during a freeze testing goes through debugging and doesn''t get any packages from unstable. During Woody stabalising this happened and is why I changed from testing to unstable.

Unstable''s not too bad, but you should have a good idea what you''re doing and how stuff works. It''s a bitch to find unstable has broken, and then trying to get it back to a workable state. This doesn''t happen very often, mind you, but at least with stable you don''t have to worry about broken anything, and testing has that 10 day buffer.

The following statement is true. The previous statement is false.
Shameless promotion:
FreePop: The GPL Populous II clone.

Testing/unstable is great for the desktop functionalities that are changing rapdily ( depending on your preferences ). Rarely have I found it a hindering experience to go this route. Things that are broken are usually fixed quickly.

Stable is good for servers, and if you need anything in particular that isn''t in stable you can always compile whatever you need from source.


.zfod

I was always under the impression that testing wasn''t that much more up-to-date than stable. I probably formed this impression back when the current stable release was testing and the freeze was underway. I may give Debian one more shot, but I''ll have to browse the packages to see what all it comes with by default first.

The Artist Formerly Known as CmndrM

http://chaos.webhop.org