Ubuntu's unstable vs Debian unstable

[Tshepang Lekhonkhobe]

On 11/30/05, Michael Beattie <mtbeedee at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/30/05, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe <tshepang at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello,
> > >From what I read on the lists it seems that Ubuntu's unstable is
> > generally more broken than Debian's, making me feel safer using Sid.
> > Could anyone confirm this.
> > Thanks...
> >
>
> That may be so, but why are you using dapper instead of breezy anyway?

I'm not. I like Debian 'testing' except when it has missing and broken
packages (like it does now) so I switched to Debian 'unstable'. This
is very recent and so far/therefore I haven't experienced much
trouble. I was wondering about an alternative switch to Dapper
'unstable'.

It was also a matter of choice:
I love Ubuntu, but the thought of having updates (bar security) half
yearly was unfavourable; Debian 'testing' is more favourably busy; it
was a choice of Ubuntu 'stable' or Debian 'testing' but that was
diverted to Debian 'unstable' since I'm afraid of Ubuntu 'unstable'.
Also an upgrade to Dapper is far more painful since the 2 projects
divert so much and a fresh install of Breezy is not acceptable, even
though it has GNOME 2.12.