stable vs. testing vs. unstable

[Javasnob]

Just how unstable are the testing and unstable packages? I hate installing packages that require higher versions of things I already have, but those higher versions are only in the testing/unstable section. I don't want my computer to crash, but I also want to do what I want!

Thanks in advance!

[genesus]

ok, read the faq on the debian website...I used stable for awhile, but after looking at the posts on this forum when I updated I updated to the testing branch--etch--because I read that unstable was seriously messing up...You can always dl deb packages, rpms, binaries, or source of newer programs if you don't want to update your entire system, which can have unfortunate consequences...use caution.

[oz]

They explain the differences here:

http://www.debian.org/releases/

[Vergil83]

they are not as bad as they sound. For example, I am running unstable and have an uptime of 17 days. KDE was messed up in unstable, but I think it may be fixed.

I would try testing. I have had few issues with it. Testing is equivalent to most other distro IMHO.

[psic]

I run unstable and I've not had any problems. I've even got some things off the experimental servers (the latest xfce) with no problems.

[Entangledphoton]

kde is seriously fubared right now in unstable... the base qt packages have been upgraded, but nothing recognizes them and even though the packages technically have the dependencies, most kde specific qt progs are dead.

That said... I still use it and have had uptime of about 7 days, but that's only because i installed a new kernel

[Chipmonk]

I have only used Testing and Unstable versions, and never had any big issues with them. When I was using Unstable, Samba was once broken by apt, but that is about extent of my problems with them. With Testing version, I have never had any stability or function issues.