Debian User Forums

First of all - hello. I am Debian user from Lithuania. Linux user since 2007. Now, in 2018, i am 30 years old.
I am from those users, who like to update only choosen (or selected, can be said) packages.
It means, if i install operating system, it is possible, that i will only update internet browser during all time of usage of that system.
In Debian i can update single package and i like it.
Opposite is for example Arch systems: in Arch, either all must be updated, or nothing. I dislike this, so that is reason why i stay away from Arch.
I use Gnome desktop with dock-to-dash extension, which gives possibility to have normal taskbar with launchers and icons of active programs.
For whose, who do not know - it is possible to configure that extension, so that clicking on icon of active program maximizes program and minimizes if pressed again. By default configuration this is not happening, only maximizing.
Thank You, all Debian developers for great system, which is the base of many other popular ones.

thanks for the praise & an informed opnion!
welcome to the forums!

Good choice!

So we know, in XFCE you can use 'window buttons' to provide max, min, move, resize, close. Very handy since it can be used in a panel all by itself and grow and shrink per open programs.

Overall the packaging system in Debian is second to none, including those non-linux ones...

av1988n wrote:First of all - hello. I am Debian user from Lithuania. Linux user since 2007. Now, in 2018, i am 30 years old.
I am from those users, who like to update only choosen (or selected, can be said) packages.
It means, if i install operating system, it is possible, that i will only update internet browser during all time of usage of that system.
In Debian i can update single package and i like it.
Opposite is for example Arch systems: in Arch, either all must be updated, or nothing. I dislike this, so that is reason why i stay away from Arch..

Her is my observation on your blanket statement about not being able to update only one package is partially false.


IIRC, this can be done with caveats of course. If you are a user of Sid (and possibly/or Buster) the above would not necessarily scare you away from Arch.
That being said, I can assume (though not for certain) that if you upgrade only certain packages in Debian, you could run into the same issues as with Arch.
Mainly being that some dependencies may get an update (or not at all) and could possibly have a bearing on packages that would otherwise be upgraded along with the only one you want to upgrade to insure stability. Again, I want to reiterate that I don't know for certain simply because I would upgrade ALL Debian packages and thinking logically, it would be no different then doing the same in Arch (much less any other distro)

Translated = You very well could be breaking other functional packages by only upgrading a single instance of one.

Other than that, there are MANY thoughtful and great reasons to move to Debian Just ensure that you are making your choice without adding additional work on your end. Sometimes the grass isn't always greener on the other-side of the fence.
With that - enjoy your Debian experience. If handled thoughtfully, you will get many, many years of loyal service with it.

Cheers
Chris

cds60601 wrote:

Code: Select all

pacman -S packagename

^ That will only work if the package or any of it's dependencies have not been updated since the last full system upgrade; the recommend installation method is The OP is quite correct in this: Arch Linux is like a bike — it's only stable when it's rolling

I and my father since the beggining updated only those system components, which wanted. Even on Windows XP all auto-updates was turned off at our computers, only firefox and probably vlc being updated selectively, not automatically, and sometimes other "networking programs", like direct connect protocol... Using systems so was and is very stable, no problems was because of this.
Only one thing what i remember about Debian was better in past, is that Debian provided official unstable iso images. If it will happen again, i will definitely will give a try to Debian unstable, because there are distributions, which use newest packages and are used by many people, for example, same Arch: Manjaro, which is Arch based, is in first position by popularity on distrowatch.com now.

av1988n wrote: Only one thing what i remember about Debian was better in past, is that Debian provided official unstable iso images. If it will happen again, i will definitely will give a try to Debian unstable, because there are distributions, which use newest packages and are used by many people, for example, same Arch: Manjaro, which is Arch based, is in first position by popularity on distrowatch.com now.

If you'd like to have sid, you don't need a separate iso for that. Download Stable, install it, change your sources.list and upgrade to Sid.

Comparison between Sid and rolling-release distros, like Arch or openSUSE Tumbleweed, is inaccurate. Sid is rolling development version, where new packages are introduced and tested, before they end up (or don't) in Testing, which in turn is development state of next stable release. Sid is essentially meant for testing and Debian development, although you can of course use it like rolling-release which breaks every now and then. Or doesn't, your mileage may vary.

If you want bleeding-edge, there are few things that can help you in Debian, like backports and apt-pinning. In general though, you'll probably have much better time using something that was actually designed to provide the latest toys community has to offer.

Debian Sid is using the latest stable software versions, much like Arch does. In essence, you get the same experience, same software. The difference is, Sid will sometimes break, and the reason being lack of coordination between various maintainers. Debian has teams of maintainers, which all act more or less independend of each other. Sure, they need to stay in touch to keep the house from falling apart, but you get the picture. What happens is that one team pushes out software which may not be compatible with some other packages maintained by some other team. In other words, dependencies required by some software on your system aren't yet uploaded. This happens most often if you mix and match various DEs, software which is conflicting or doesn't follow the same developer pace.

One way you can partially mitigate this breakage is to keep the system integrated as much as you can (example: all GNOME packages, GTK applications only, software that is maintained upstream, reliable hardware that works with open-source drivers, etc.) This way, even if something breaks, APT will tell you some packages are held back, it will try to remove working packages, apt-listbugs will tell you some RC will render something unusable, so on. If that happens, you simply don't upgrade. Fixes come much, much sooner than for Testing.

While I'm at it, the reason why Stable is so good and reliable is just that it's a collection of well integrated software, frozen in time. Essentially, a stable snapshot.
Do keep in mind that even Sid will eventually be frozen, before a new Stable release. The freeze time is much shorter than in Testing, though.

av1988n wrote:I am from those users, who like to update only choosen (or selected, can be said) packages.

It is not a good idea. Updates do not need to be scared. If you use Debian 9, i.e. stable version, updates are reliable, there are not many, and they are essential to ensure the operating system's security and stable functioning.