Scheduled Maintenance: We are aware of an issue with Google, AOL, and Yahoo services as email providers which are blocking new registrations. We are trying to fix the issue and we have several internal and external support tickets in process to resolve the issue. Please see: viewtopic.php?t=158230
should I run unstable?
should I run unstable?
I'm no debian expert, I'm fairly new to running straight debian but I am familiar with deb based distros. I've also run other more "advanced" distros in the past (I ran arch for about a year). I find wheezy is too out of date for my tastes, and I've been thinking about upgrading to sid.
My system has intel graphics and needs no proprietary driver so I don't have to worry about binary blobs breaking on me or anything.
How unstable does sid tend to be? Would I expect constant bugs/regressions, or just the more occasional ones? I have no problem running into the occasional bug and reporting them as long as it doesn't happen *too* often how stable it it compared to say, arch linux?
My system has intel graphics and needs no proprietary driver so I don't have to worry about binary blobs breaking on me or anything.
How unstable does sid tend to be? Would I expect constant bugs/regressions, or just the more occasional ones? I have no problem running into the occasional bug and reporting them as long as it doesn't happen *too* often how stable it it compared to say, arch linux?
- robert3242
- Posts: 314
- Joined: 2009-06-25 08:30
- Location: Lebanon, Indiana, USA
Re: should I run unstable?
Not to be picky, because we're all entitled to our opinion, but I'd question calling updating from a stable to an unstable distro as "upgrading." Guess it depends on what you're looking for. As for what to expect if you run sid, others here are no doubt running it just fine, but based on what I've read, packages don't generally make it into sid in any particular order, meaning (to me, anyway) that I would expect fairly frequent breakages if not regressions (if upstream knows what they're doing, anyway). I believe that the developers do try as best they can to migrate packages from sid to testing in such a way as to keep breakages to a minimum. Can't speak to any comparisons to Arch. Never tried it for precisely the same reasons discussed. I would not be at all happy if I found my system unusable, or some software which I depend upon unusable, even if only for a few hours.bwat47 wrote:I'm no debian expert, I'm fairly new to running straight debian but I am familiar with deb based distros. I've also run other more "advanced" distros in the past (I ran arch for about a year). I find wheezy is too out of date for my tastes, and I've been thinking about upgrading to sid.
My system has intel graphics and needs no proprietary driver so I don't have to worry about binary blobs breaking on me or anything.
How unstable does sid tend to be? Would I expect constant bugs/regressions, or just the more occasional ones? I have no problem running into the occasional bug and reporting them as long as it doesn't happen *too* often how stable it it compared to say, arch linux?
Debian 7.7 (amd64)/Xfce 4.8
Re: should I run unstable?
At the risk of stating the incredibly obvious, no one can decide this question for you.
So install sid in a VM and decide for yourself. If you decide that you're content with the level of breakage, then you can install on "bare metal."
So install sid in a VM and decide for yourself. If you decide that you're content with the level of breakage, then you can install on "bare metal."
Re: should I run unstable?
I would become familiar with the command line package management tools if you intend to run sid.bwat47 wrote:I'm no debian expert
http://wiki.debian.org/Apt
There should just be a distro that builds all of its software directly from git/svn automatically every hour. Even then people would not be happy. Ever since I started making money using Linux I realize the value of something well tested and without constant changes.I find wheezy is too out of date for my tastes, and I've been thinking about upgrading to sid.
All software has bugs so I will define stable to mean fewer changes. Debian unstable branch usually has software designed to eventually reach the next version of stable; So it tends to have only release quality versions of software. That being said, it lives up to it's namesake, and has newer versions of packages quite constantly. If you upgrade during a transition without reading what packages might be upgraded or removed, you could break a system temporarily. Always check the change logs and bug reports before an upgrade.how stable it it compared to say, arch linux?
http://www.debian.org/releases/sid/
Always on Debian Testing
-
- Posts: 2121
- Joined: 2009-10-21 01:03
Re: should I run unstable?
My recommendation is to run Stable, or a mixed Testing / Sid system, defaulting to Testing.
http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?t=15612
Of course you could then change the default to Sid later if you preferred.
And always use apt-listbugs...
http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?t=15612
Of course you could then change the default to Sid later if you preferred.
And always use apt-listbugs...
The Forum's search box is terrible. Use site specific search, e.g.
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3A ... terms+here
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3A ... terms+here
Re: should I run unstable?
I smell a new distro!vbrummond wrote:There should just be a distro that builds all of its software directly from git/svn automatically every hour.
May I suggest a name?
SNSLinux
I can almost hear the fanbois now...
- Dude! You're running version 201305.21.0200???
That's ancient! That was 24 versions ago!!
Current is 201305.22.0300--you gotta upgrade!!
Re: should I run unstable?
Aye. Though there are indeed useful reasons to run sid; Such as development, testing, bugfixing, etc. There are many more reasons to run stable. I guess that is what the Debian CUT project was trying to do. Give a middle ground between a semi-rolling and static release model.
It is inevitable that when folk hear something like 'kde 4.11 is out (its not yet)' they will want to run it. So I guess, its up to them if they want to run Sid or Testing. I guess it's not much harm on a personal workstation.
It is inevitable that when folk hear something like 'kde 4.11 is out (its not yet)' they will want to run it. So I guess, its up to them if they want to run Sid or Testing. I guess it's not much harm on a personal workstation.
Always on Debian Testing
Re: should I run unstable?
For a hobbyist or casual user maybe.vbrummond wrote:I guess it's not much harm on a personal workstation.
For me, my personal workstation is really the "production server" for my life and livelihood.
Which explains why I run Stable.
Re: should I run unstable?
I'm one of those old folk home life learners. no crap.
But I do it on my own, and I take responsibility for my mistakes too.
If you want sid run sid, but if it breaks you get to keep all the pieces.
Don't post in here about how sid fucked you up, it wouldn't be pretty.
And I can only warn about filing bugs in sid without offering the devs a patch.
OK I'm done.
edit: for anyone who tracks buried edits.
" you have the right to run stable"
But I do it on my own, and I take responsibility for my mistakes too.
If you want sid run sid, but if it breaks you get to keep all the pieces.
Don't post in here about how sid fucked you up, it wouldn't be pretty.
And I can only warn about filing bugs in sid without offering the devs a patch.
OK I'm done.
edit: for anyone who tracks buried edits.
" you have the right to run stable"
Last edited by llivv on 2013-05-24 05:34, edited 1 time in total.
In memory of Ian Ashley Murdock (1973 - 2015) founder of the Debian project.
Re: should I run unstable?
Hi,
The advantages of running "wheezy", released on May 4th, 2013, as one's main desktop system clearly and heavily outweigh the disadvantage of "being too outdated." Stable provide the best stability and rigourous and reliable security thereby limiting administrative efforts. The imagined advantage of running either testing or unstable suites as a relatively easier route to more recent software - is, apart from reasons detailed by Osamu Aoki in Life with eternal upgrades, offset by an increase in time for administrative efforts; for example:
Finally, while some more expert users may run testing or unstable as their main system, others who are interested in the development of the next stable release, namely "jessie," track "testing" and "sid" in addition to using stable, which they prefer since it has been extensively tried and tested.
bwat47 wrote:I find wheezy is too out of date for my tastes, and I've been thinking about upgrading to sid.
The advantages of running "wheezy", released on May 4th, 2013, as one's main desktop system clearly and heavily outweigh the disadvantage of "being too outdated." Stable provide the best stability and rigourous and reliable security thereby limiting administrative efforts. The imagined advantage of running either testing or unstable suites as a relatively easier route to more recent software - is, apart from reasons detailed by Osamu Aoki in Life with eternal upgrades, offset by an increase in time for administrative efforts; for example:
Apart from iceweasel, where the latest version can be installed in wheezy by following the instructions from the Debian Mozilla Team, there are plenty of ways to install recent versions of software in wheezy from either testing or sid; for instance, I've already "upgraded" a few packages by backporting them from sid as advised in wiki.debian.org/DebianSoftware:Even though the unstable suite of Debian system looks very stable for most of the times, there have been some package problems on the testing and unstable suite of Debian system and a few of them were not so trivial to resolve. It may be quite painful for you. Sometimes, you may have a broken package or missing functionality for a few weeks.
Backporting (recompiling and repackaging) is the only safe way to install packages from Debian Sid or Debian Testing on a Debian stable system. Do not install such packages without backporting.
Code: Select all
$ apt-cache policy minitube oss4-base oss4-dkms oss4-gtk youtube-dl
minitube:
Installed: 1.9-1~bpo60+1
Candidate: 1.9-1~bpo60+1
Version table:
*** 1.9-1~bpo60+1 0
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
oss4-base:
Installed: 4.2-build2007-2~bpo60+1
Candidate: 4.2-build2007-2~bpo60+1
Version table:
*** 4.2-build2007-2~bpo60+1 0
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
4.2-build2006-2+deb7u1 0
500 ftp://ftp.rediris.es/debian/ wheezy/main amd64 Packages
oss4-dkms:
Installed: 4.2-build2007-2~bpo60+1
Candidate: 4.2-build2007-2~bpo60+1
Version table:
*** 4.2-build2007-2~bpo60+1 0
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
4.2-build2006-2+deb7u1 0
500 ftp://ftp.rediris.es/debian/ wheezy/main amd64 Packages
oss4-gtk:
Installed: 4.2-build2007-2~bpo60+1
Candidate: 4.2-build2007-2~bpo60+1
Version table:
*** 4.2-build2007-2~bpo60+1 0
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
4.2-build2006-2+deb7u1 0
500 ftp://ftp.rediris.es/debian/ wheezy/main amd64 Packages
youtube-dl:
Installed: 2012.09.27+dfsg1-1~bpo60+1
Candidate: 2012.09.27+dfsg1-1~bpo60+1
Version table:
*** 2012.09.27+dfsg1-1~bpo60+1 0
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
DebianStable
Code: Select all
$ vrms
No non-free or contrib packages installed on debian! rms would be proud.
- anastasis
- Posts: 222
- Joined: 2012-11-15 02:28
- Location: Near White Sands Missile Range
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: should I run unstable?
No, I wouldn't suggest it. Debian has stable as stable for a reason. I trust the judgment on this issue. Debian is a server and stability distro. Always has been, always will be. That's the sort of stability I want on my laptop. I use my laptop for work everyday and I sure don't need it breaking on me. If you depend on your computer in any way to be your bread and butter, stick with stable. It'll all get updated soon enough. I want stability and power usage. My desktop setup is ugly, bland, not bleeding edge and that's exactly how I want it to stay.
"He might be a German, but he ain't no Einstein."
- robert3242
- Posts: 314
- Joined: 2009-06-25 08:30
- Location: Lebanon, Indiana, USA
Re: should I run unstable?
LOL. This is hilarious! And there's more than a grain of truth in it, too. I think some of that comes from people who've spent too much time on the Dark Side (with Windoze), for which the maker has to release a plethora of patches at least once per month, if not sooner, because their OS is a POS to begin with. Also there's the quaint (and IMHO, stupid) American myth that "newer" always equates to "better." This may be true sometimes, but not always. I never cease to be amazed at people to whom it never even occurs to ask themselves if their existing OS and apps actually meet their needs, if these enable them to do the things they need to do with their system. Hence, anything newer is always desirable and preferable, even if what they already have meets their real needs perfectly.dasein wrote:I smell a new distro!vbrummond wrote:There should just be a distro that builds all of its software directly from git/svn automatically every hour.
May I suggest a name?
SNSLinux
I can almost hear the fanbois now...
- Dude! You're running version 201305.21.0200???
That's ancient! That was 24 versions ago!!
Current is 201305.22.0300--you gotta upgrade!!
MS and Windoze developers have made trillions of $s by selling the public on this perception when they might have spent some of their huge advertising budgets to actually produce better software from the get-go instead. For that matter, so have certain wireless phone manufacturers. Their fanbois wait with bated breath for a chance to throw away hundreds more $s each year when they release a "new" phone, which more often than not does little or nothing which previous versions couldn't do perfectly well. It's also true of almost any company which spends lots of advertising $s. That's what ad agencies do. They convince consumers that they can't live, or at least can't be "hip," without the "latest, greatest."
I think it was the late P.T. Barnum who once said, "There's a sucker born every minute." He was right, and companies like MS and others couldn't exist if it weren't true.
Debian 7.7 (amd64)/Xfce 4.8
Re: should I run unstable?
I think me and you will agree on many things.anastasis wrote:If you depend on your computer in any way to be your bread and butter, stick with stable. It'll all get updated soon enough. I want stability and power usage. My desktop setup is ugly, bland, not bleeding edge and that's exactly how I want it to stay.
Always on Debian Testing
Re: should I run unstable?
It is truly amazing, isn't it? People act as if software wears out with time. (Ironically, these are the same folks often neglect to do backups on the only part of their machine that does experience mechanical wear-and-tear, the HDD. )robert3242 wrote:I never cease to be amazed at people to whom it never even occurs to ask themselves if their existing OS and apps actually meet their needs...
Particularly in the FOSS world, where regression testing is all but nonexistent, an "upgrade" is often-as-not nothing more than trading rusty old bugs for shiny new bugs.
Excactly! And millions fall for it every day. My reference to "ancient" actually came from a very recent thread where someone characterized FF/IW Version 10 as "ancient," even though it's barely a year old, and has received something like a dozen ongoing security fixes. The poster was totally sucked in by the fact that "11 versions" have been released in the interim.robert3242 wrote:It's also true of almost any company which spends lots of advertising $s. That's what ad agencies do. They convince consumers that they can't live, or at least can't be "hip," without the "latest, greatest."
Edit: The late Carl Sagan had an interesting take on advertising. He posited that any products that are heavily advertised are, pretty much by definition, indistinguishable from competitors, which is what makes heavy advertising necessary.
(Wow. Ok, thread totally hijacked. Sorry.)
Re: should I run unstable?
Justified. The original poster needs to understand that anyone who has to ask, "should I run unstable?", really has no business doing so.dasein wrote:(Wow. Ok, thread totally hijacked. Sorry.)
- dilberts_left_nut
- Administrator
- Posts: 5346
- Joined: 2009-10-05 07:54
- Location: enzed
- Has thanked: 12 times
- Been thanked: 66 times
Re: should I run unstable?
My mod handbook says it is impossible to be OT in a general philosophical thread entitled "should I run unstable". Carry on.
AdrianTM wrote:There's no hacker in my grandma...
Re: should I run unstable?
With that blessing in mind...dilberts_left_nut wrote:My mod handbook says it is impossible to be OT in a general philosophical thread entitled "should I run unstable". Carry on.
Speaking of SNSS: http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php? ... 0&p=498315
Gotta love a fashion sense so keen that two weeks is too long.
-
- Posts: 2121
- Joined: 2009-10-21 01:03
Re: should I run unstable?
While I think that's a sensible default position, the OP also says they've run Arch for a year, apparently quite happily.Bulkley wrote:Justified. The original poster needs to understand that anyone who has to ask, "should I run unstable?", really has no business doing so.dasein wrote:(Wow. Ok, thread totally hijacked. Sorry.)
You ever run Arch? I think it's not bad as a learning tool, though I wouldn't normally recommend it as a distro for normal use. In my opinion it complicates things needlessly, and it's subject to its share of random breakage.
Testing, arguably even Sid too, are going to be less hassle. My opinion is that a mixed system is less hassle than either.
The Forum's search box is terrible. Use site specific search, e.g.
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3A ... terms+here
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3A ... terms+here
Re: should I run unstable?
I did. For a full month many years ago. I really wanted to like it. But, like you, I felt like it was always just a bit harder and more cumbersome than it needed to be. (Plus, back in those days, Arch didn't have signed packages, and seemed utterly resistant to the idea for reasons I could never fathom.)confuseling wrote:You ever run Arch?