3 ms·

Serious question... Can't you make the same argument against using stable for the same reason? > If something breaks, it will stay broken for quite a long tim

• shmerl 9y ago
  Stable usually doesn't get such issues. They are related to transitions. Sometimes it happens, that some packages are stuck in unstable for example, because they don't build on some arch, while their related packages go through. In result, testing gets an inconsistent combination, while unstable is OK. It happens when someone didn't take care to specify that these packages should only move to testing together. This won't happen with stable, since it will get the consistent result in the end.
• gcb0 9y ago
  that's sysadm 101. on stable you don't get data corruption bugs, and you shutdown or filter security holes until they are confirmed fixed. on testing/unstable you can have data corruption bugs and everything else. but you may bet that security fixes are done faster. emphasis on bet.
• vacri 9y ago
  Stable moves much slower (if at all), so breakages are much less likely, and packages are battle-tested. A cutting-edge or rolling distro, like Unstable, gets a lot more changes, and you get to do the battle-testing yourself. Basically you install the Stable system to get a stable system, and then 'bring forward' just those packages you need.