Ubuntu's unstable vs Debian unstable

[Michael Beattie]

On 12/1/05, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe <tshepang at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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'.
>

Wait, wait, wait...

You say testing is too broken, so you went to unstable?

unstable is by design more broken than testing, right?  I believe they
have to be stable enough in unstable before they get moved to testing.