Need Advice Concerning Testing Branch and Unstable Branch
 

((First off, I had a stroke and am brain damaged. I have really bad short term memory problems.))

I have been using Debian exclusively since 2005. Until my stroke, I was using, eventually, a "blend" with Testing and Unstable. I "think" I understand the risks of Unstable.

Since my stroke, I used Stable, but moved to testing about six months ago. I need some advice to make the determination if I should stick with testing or move to unstable.

Weirdly, I would also like to hear (actually read) NEGATIVE aspects of using unstable, and would appreciate any advice from any users of this fine forum.

Thank you, all, in advance for any input to my question, and have a good day.

Clearly :P

https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...on-4175614568/

Testing is less likely than unstable to have "big" problems, but can remain broken and have uninstallable packages for much longer.

Really, both testing and sid are for those interested in contributing bug reports and fiddling with their system and solving unpredictable problems.

If you want a Debian system to use, it's stable.

Stable is best for most people, you shouldn't get any problems, however software programs can be quite old.

Testing is good if you must have newer programs, but you may have some trouble with it at times, but not often from my experience.

Unstable is exactly that, it is a moving target, & you will likely have some trouble with it at times.

I used Testing for a while and I never had anything break on me. But I'm probably atypical; I use only a limited number of applications. If something does break, the problem can hang about for a long time, because they don't fix things in Testing unless there are security implications. You have to wait until a better version comes through from Unstable.