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.)
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?
Re: should I run unstable?
- dilberts_left_nut
- Administrator
- Posts: 5346
- Joined: 2009-10-05 07:54
- Location: enzed
- Has thanked: 13 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?
Re: should I run unstable?
"I run Debian unstable on my laptop and most of my servers. I have one production web server that runs Debian stable instead, but mostly I can deal with any day-to-day glitches that come up using Debian unstable. I’ve used nothing else since 1996."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?
http://joey.hess.usesthis.com/
In other words:. Unstable is usually very stable.
Make a backup too and you are ready to go. Perhaps you will never need the backup. But if you need it restoring is done in 15 minutes. Install apt-listbugs too. Upgrade and dist-upgrade as often as possible. Get the head in a window manager and in the basic command line solutions if X is ever gone alltogether.
If folks in this thread are not able to doesn't mean it's hard, only that they are not able to. However their post count may be. Perhaps they are too busy with high-five?
If you want to then you can run it It's that easy. And if you consider yourself a pro and make a living with computing, then you should be able to run it.
Re: should I run unstable?
Do you even lift bro?If folks in this thread are not able to doesn't mean it's hard, only that they are not able to.
Too busy with real life to fix broken init or hear someone complain on forums about broken init.However their post count may be. Perhaps they are too busy with high-five?
This advice was already given.If you want to then you can run it It's that easy.
Always on Debian Testing
Re: should I run unstable?
"This advice was already given."
Sure, but then the thread went south by all kind of chat by the staff
- that's probably of higher value than repeating a correct advice
init is broken? Not here. Never has been.
Sure, but then the thread went south by all kind of chat by the staff
- that's probably of higher value than repeating a correct advice
init is broken? Not here. Never has been.
-
- Posts: 2121
- Joined: 2009-10-21 01:03
Re: should I run unstable?
I think if it were sold as a learning distro it would be good.dasein wrote: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?
But a policy of "no automatic configuration, even if automatically configuring this X has been perfected" is logically indefensible to me. Unless of course you're putting up roadblocks to keep the newbs out (besides which, they seem to state this as a policy, but they certainly don't apply it consistently).
I prefer Debian's method of keeping the newbs out - make the distro comparatively simple, but be needlessly rude to them on the forum.
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?
And if it is, joe user will probably not be happy. I guess at best case it will be a learning experience for them. At least it is easy to bypass init problems on Debian.Struth wrote:init is broken? Not here. Never has been.
Anyway, not the point. `Insert name of unforeseen problem caused by sid upload here`. I get a bad vibe from you, so I won't be replying to you again.
Always on Debian Testing
Re: should I run unstable?
Smart move. There are telltale signs that this is a newly created alt-account from a notorious troll.vbrummond wrote:I get a bad vibe from you, so I won't be replying to you again.
Save time. Click here: http://forums.debian.net/ucp.php?i=zebra&mode=foes
Re: should I run unstable?
Depends if you want good vibes or if you want to learn how debian works. Both of you.
Working for this, working for that, making certificates and giving recommendations. Clowns with no clue.
Vibe on now (hush, hush, go and run for one of your nannies).
Working for this, working for that, making certificates and giving recommendations. Clowns with no clue.
Vibe on now (hush, hush, go and run for one of your nannies).
Re: should I run unstable?
I highly doubt it is nadir. The English level is a bit too high and the prose style is unlike his.dasein wrote:Smart move. There are telltale signs that this is a newly created alt-account from a notorious troll.
Save time. Click here: http://forums.debian.net/ucp.php?i=zebra&mode=foes
Re: should I run unstable?
Thanks for the replies guys I think I will stay with wheezy and hope that backports are enough for me. And I can always move to testing or sid later if I decide to. I care more about having applications up to date then the DE (for now I actually prefer gnome 3.4 to newer versions, less buggy)
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=696882. Nearly every GTK 3 application would have bizarre and incredibly annoying behavior, empathy would randomly resize to be super wide while I was using it, most apps would never remember their size and open in a tiny window. I can't fathom how something like this ever made it into a final release.
There's also a bug in gnome 3.8 where fairly often nautilus will crash gnome shell when its opened, and sometimes it even totally crashes gnome forcing you to log out, and its still not fixed.
And gnome 3.6 was released with a massive memory leak that was never fixed (its semi-fixed in 3.8 ), where every time you click on a something in the top panel the memory usage would go up 1-3mb and never get released, I could easily get gnome-shell to up to a gb of usage after clicking it for a few minutes in my testing.
I always torn between loving to run the latest software, but hating the apparent lack of any testing. of course any software has bugs and its impossible to catch them all before release, but releasing with severe usability and stability bugs like that is pretty ridiculous :/
Agreed. Gnome seems especially bad when it comes to this. They keep releasing "stable versions" with very obvious and severe bugs. For example gnome 3.8:dasein wrote:
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.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=696882. Nearly every GTK 3 application would have bizarre and incredibly annoying behavior, empathy would randomly resize to be super wide while I was using it, most apps would never remember their size and open in a tiny window. I can't fathom how something like this ever made it into a final release.
There's also a bug in gnome 3.8 where fairly often nautilus will crash gnome shell when its opened, and sometimes it even totally crashes gnome forcing you to log out, and its still not fixed.
And gnome 3.6 was released with a massive memory leak that was never fixed (its semi-fixed in 3.8 ), where every time you click on a something in the top panel the memory usage would go up 1-3mb and never get released, I could easily get gnome-shell to up to a gb of usage after clicking it for a few minutes in my testing.
I always torn between loving to run the latest software, but hating the apparent lack of any testing. of course any software has bugs and its impossible to catch them all before release, but releasing with severe usability and stability bugs like that is pretty ridiculous :/
Re: should I run unstable?
Stable+backports is a winning combination, in my experience. That said, it will take some time for anything to find its way to Wheezy backports. There are only so many hours in a day, and sid hasn't gotten any real love in almost a year.bwat47 wrote:I think I will stay with wheezy and hope that backports are enough for me.
As any GNOME dev (or even Bill Gates) could tell you, those aren't bugs; they are features you just haven't learned to appreciate.bwat47 wrote:...releasing with severe usability and stability bugs like that is pretty ridiculous :/