Ubuntu's unstable vs Debian unstable

[Scott]

Derek Broughton wrote:
> Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> 
>>>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.
> 
> Not categorically, since I no longer use Sid, but Dapper's not seriously
> broken.  It upgrades fine, but I wouldn't want to try a dist-upgrade this
> week - most of KDE is not yet converted to use kdelibs4c2a, and will get
> removed (which may even be only because I installed the KDE 3.5 RC from
> kubuntu.org - if I'd waited for 3.5 to show up in Dapper, I may have
> avoided this).  I'm sure this will straighten out within days.
> 
> 
> I always had the same problems, intermittently, with Sid - the unstable
> branches will have periods where they're not internally consistent, but
> they're not usually a big deal as long as you don't just blithely use
> "dist-upgrade" without checking for consequences.

I gave etch a try a few weeks back which was missing scads-o-packages.
I found said packages in Sid.  So, I was using packages from both.  It
became dependency hell (even with pinning).

From my personal experience, I've found that Ubuntu has some packages I
like/want that Debian doesn't and Debian has some packages I like/want
that Ubuntu doesn't.

It's a no-win situation.

Overall though, I prefer Ubuntu's relatively stable current releases
with their six-month upgrade cycles to trying to mess with anything
Debian.       Hopefully, etch won't take 3-years to become stable like
Sarge did.  That is Debian's biggest flaw, imho.

In the meantime, Sarge is OK if you don't mind not having the latest
stuff (and for a server it's awesome I'm sure).

Personally I like the "latest" in some cases and others I don't care.
Regardless, Ubuntu better meets my needs.


-- 
Scott
www.angrykeyboarder.com
© 2005 angrykeyboarder & Elmer Fudd. All Wights Wesewved