I was just wondering about the general consensus of this quote.

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...94#post1496994

i have had only one brakeage with sarge several month ago and it was fixed within hours.....with SID also minimal problems fixed usually overnight...but then again i can always go back to previous version without problems...

Sid has been pretty stable for me so far, though every once and a while I do notice an updated app that seems to be "out of flux" with the rest of the system (more a feeling I get than any stability problems, though notifications of grave errors in apps while upgrading can be a bit unnerving). Regardless, I'm not neccessarily 100% comfortable with the situation, and if I get a new hard drive this week I may be distro shopping . Don't get me wrong, Sid's done nothing at all wrong to me, I think I'm just getting old, and the excitement of "living on the edge" is taking it's toll on me lol. Fact of the matter is I'm looking at Ubuntu, which is based on Sid anyways, just Sid with a bit of added polish and shine .

well.. at first glance.. the following comes to mind...
"no shit"

I have 3 linux boxes running next to each other at school. one running slackware debian and mandrake.

while the slackware and debian boxes work great with a fair amount of coaxing, the mandrake box gives me nothing but grief.. and no matter what I do has hideous problems with the network there. my problems with mandrake stem from the fact that everything is hidden behind a gui configuration tool. and therefore I have great difficulty configuring it correctly.
nothing good can come of taking redhat and making it's most annoying aspect "better"

for someone who does stuff with thier box that extends beyond being an end user or perhaps doing software development. I have no doubt in that statement.

sid is more stable than its name implies

I guess the definition of unstable goes beyond any app being unstable or not. It's not just the bugcount that makes it unstable, it's the constant updates and changes in the dependencies imo. From little changes to the way iptables starts to complete overhauls with X, it allways requires a lot of time to figure out how to work with it.

It's actually nice to have a stable Debian, no changes, no mess. Perfect to get some work done!

Think it's true. Never had trouble with debian. Did have trouble with mandrake the 5 minutes I used it till I threw away the disks and started playing with debian again

Debian Sid more stable than Slackware???

i don't think i'll wade into this one, as my experience with sid was a long time ago and i was inexperienced with the ways of the swirl. Plus, i still use sarge. :P

I've just started with slack and I'm using sid for half a year now but the main difference I experience now is speed. Slackware is a lot faster, might be because of the package management but it could also be cause I didn't install much yet. For stability they kind of feel the same. But then you'd have to define a slackware version too I guess. I wouldn't know how sid compares to current but I think current is newer though the idea behind it might be the same (new packages, lots of changes?)

Am I supposed to have said that..?


well.. didn't... I've never had problems with either slackware current or sid that weren't something stupid that I did(in most cases.. didn't do).

Sweet. Keep us up to date on your experiences.

I've used MDK for over a year, and moved to Debian sarge a couple of months ago.
I count my (good) Linux experience as a couple of month old...

Might make a site on it sometime. I'd really like to see how slack handles openoffice cause there was a significant increase in the speed in debian but since slack overall seems faster it might work better there. But I've got to do exam work first

Sarge has been quite flawed for me, for instance the usb drivers arent fantastic....