I use Antix in 3 machines. 2 are using Stable and 1 testing. For my family only Antix Stable.

I think that I could deal with testing or unstable, but I need time for it, for this reason I prefer the Stable option, I prefer Zero surprises.

For example, in"testing" the browser launcher icon is not working after a fresh install, and Wicd is not working after the first updates.

In which kind of people are you thinking for to use Antix? My sister, my brother in law, my wife, the best option for they is also Stable, they are normal people with very little knowledge of linux and English.

I knlow, for other people the best option could be Antix Sid, or even LinuxBBQ...

I hope that you keep the options Stable and testing like now is for the next release.

This is my opinion.

Thanks.

fatmac wrote:Machine Bacon used to create a lot of distros from Sid,

He still is. Machinebacon is very knowledgeable about Linux. He helped me out quite a bit when I first started using CrunchBang on a regular basis.

anticapitalista wrote:F*^k the internet!

C'mon...without the Internet, would Linux have taken off like it has? I have no desire to return to the days without an Internet. It is a very useful tool in my opinion.

Aleph wrote:I think that I could deal with testing or unstable, but I need time for it, for this reason I prefer the Stable option, I prefer Zero surprises.

Yeah, as much as I like the newer/shinier stuff, I would rather stuff just work. It does take a bit of time to troubleshoot issues and time is a valuable resource.

I think he means the modern new and shiny internet, the one you can not use"properly" without a monster of a browser, and too much ram.

^ Thank you for the clarification. I still think it's a useful tool, even though it's new and shiny. __{{emoticon}}__

rust collector wrote:I think he means the modern new and shiny internet, the one you can not use"properly" without a monster of a browser, and too much ram.

......trying to use lynx on most websites just doesn't work...... __{{emoticon}}__

without the Internet, would Linux have taken off like it has?

How do you mean? Ignoring alter-egos, aliases, and split personalities, there are only six people total on the internet. Even if all six of us switched to using linux, would that count as"taking off"?

vrooooom

When we are talking about this particular poll, I personally prefer Debian Sid for it's current packages. More often than not they work just fine. I have had at least one Debian Sid system set up since around 2009. I can't remember if I've rebuilt it yet. I know I did finally rebuild one of my older, rolling release systems, simply to install a newer file system. Other than that, I saved and restored my personal files and all was well.

Therefore, the notion of"Unstable" refers more to the volatility of the packages, and yes, the"potential" to break something. I've probably broken three or four Debian Testing or Debian Sid distributions over the years, but I believe one of my very long standing Sid distributions was once a Debian Stable system, going back to Debian 5 or 6. I don't think that I have that hardware any more, but I ran that distribution for many years without incident. The current stuff I run, even on different hardware, comes from files copied to external HDD and ported to my current portables.

If the question is more about usability and lack of confusion, then in that case I'd use something like a MEPIS, MX-14, Xubuntu, or other simple distribution like antiX with a stable repository behind it. AntiX is one of the lightest and fastest stable systems around, no doubt about that!