7 ms·

How long does it usually take for things to settle down in Testing after a stable release? I heard it might take up to several months.

lamby 9y ago
I would actually recommend running unstable these days.
- plange 9y ago
  Unstable over testing? Really? Why? :-) I've been running stretch on a lenovo carbon x1 for the last 2 years and it's been one of the first problem-free experiences running linux on the desktop (linux user for.. 18 years). Really awesome. Thanks!
  - vacri 9y ago
    I've been running debian on an x1 carbon as well (gen 3). I was impressed that it 'just worked' to the point that I even got an inbuilt wireless modem, popped the SIM card in, and the only bit of configuration I had to do was, literally, choosing which of my ISP's APNs to connect to.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - progval 9y ago
    It takes security fixes a few days to get from unstable to testing.
  - brusch64 9y ago
    Some years back I was using testing. It was the year they changed over from Gnome 2 to Gnome 3. I couldn't use the stable release because my mainboard and cpu wasn't supported. Boy, was this a hard process. It took some months until my system worked without GDM crashes. After that I changed over to Arch and been a happy Arch-er since than. I wouldn't recommend running testing. I've heard that unstable is more like Arch linux and the rolling release model of Arch Linux works very well for me.
- shmerl 9y ago
  Can you please elaborate? I was always under the impression that testing is better for regular desktop usage. I've been running it for a long time now.
- heftysync 9y ago
  Do you mean right now after a release or you recommend unstable in general?
  - lamby 9y ago
    The latter.
- wiz21c 9y ago
  The problem I see with unstable is not the lack of stability, it's the time needed to check the changes when upgrading. Stables is much easier to track because it changes less (wait, that was the point, no ? :-))

lamby 9y ago

I would actually recommend running unstable these days.

plange 9y ago
Unstable over testing? Really? Why? :-) I've been running stretch on a lenovo carbon x1 for the last 2 years and it's been one of the first problem-free experiences running linux on the desktop (linux user for.. 18 years). Really awesome. Thanks!
- vacri 9y ago
  I've been running debian on an x1 carbon as well (gen 3). I was impressed that it 'just worked' to the point that I even got an inbuilt wireless modem, popped the SIM card in, and the only bit of configuration I had to do was, literally, choosing which of my ISP's APNs to connect to.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- progval 9y ago
  It takes security fixes a few days to get from unstable to testing.
- brusch64 9y ago
  Some years back I was using testing. It was the year they changed over from Gnome 2 to Gnome 3. I couldn't use the stable release because my mainboard and cpu wasn't supported. Boy, was this a hard process. It took some months until my system worked without GDM crashes. After that I changed over to Arch and been a happy Arch-er since than. I wouldn't recommend running testing. I've heard that unstable is more like Arch linux and the rolling release model of Arch Linux works very well for me.
shmerl 9y ago
Can you please elaborate? I was always under the impression that testing is better for regular desktop usage. I've been running it for a long time now.
heftysync 9y ago
Do you mean right now after a release or you recommend unstable in general?
- lamby 9y ago
  The latter.
wiz21c 9y ago
The problem I see with unstable is not the lack of stability, it's the time needed to check the changes when upgrading. Stables is much easier to track because it changes less (wait, that was the point, no ? :-))