4 ms·

> after upgrading to the next Debian stable release, my stuff continues to work can be replaced by > with frequent upgrades, errors are sparse blips on the De

by auvrw 9y ago

> after upgrading to the next Debian stable release, my stuff continues to work can be replaced by > with frequent upgrades, errors are sparse blips on the Debian testing release - standard line: if you're considering Debian for the desktop and want a reasonable mix of stability as well as recent updates, testing recommended over stable.

hsivonen 9y ago
Testing doesn't, by policy, get reliably timely security patches. https://www.debian.org/security/faq#testing https://www.debian.org/security/faq#testing (I wish Debian had a genuinely supported rolling or rolling-ish flavor. It's bad for the Linux ecosystem when people who don't need to be using out-of-date software use out-of-date software from stable.)
- lamby 9y ago
  "unstable" (ignore the name, assume it refers to the version numbers...) serves this purpose for many.
  - hsivonen 9y ago
    It does for many, but: 1) The general attitude seems to be that if something breaks, the user is at fault for using something called “unstable”. I.e. it’s not positioned as a way for the casual user to keep using up-to-date software that’d still be smoke-tested enough that you don’t need to be an enthusiast who can resurrect an occasional broken system. 2) While there probably in practice is better security coverage than in testing and backports, formally there still isn’t security support per https://www.debian.org/security/faq#unstable https://www.debian.org/security/faq#unstable . (I do recognize your HN handle and know you know this, but I’m providing the link for other readers.)
    - lamby 9y ago
      > it’s not positioned as a way for the casual user Indeed. Any crazy ideas on how to remedy this? :)
      - hsivonen 9y ago
        Repurposing testing as such a distro (not calling it “testing”). Discontinuing stable (i.e. leaving the enterprise use case to Red Hat and SuSE) if the security team doesn’t have capacity to support both.
        lamby 9y ago
        That's a huge ask. My query was really about "rebranding" unstable.
        hsivonen 9y ago
        When suggesting that Debian provide a security-supported release stream other than stable, the usual response is that the security team doesn’t have the capacity to support another one. That why I pointed out unprompted that I’d cut stable if there isn’t capacity for multiple security-supported channels. I realize it would be a big change for Debian.
        hsivonen 9y ago
        Also: unstable can’t be the channel for casual users with rebranding, since there needs to be some smoke testing channel before the one for casual users.

by auvrw 9y ago

hsivonen 9y ago

Testing doesn't, by policy, get reliably timely security patches. https://www.debian.org/security/faq#testing https://www.debian.org/security/faq#testing (I wish Debian had a genuinely supported rolling or rolling-ish flavor. It's bad for the Linux ecosystem when people who don't need to be using out-of-date software use out-of-date software from stable.)

lamby 9y ago
"unstable" (ignore the name, assume it refers to the version numbers...) serves this purpose for many.
- hsivonen 9y ago
  It does for many, but: 1) The general attitude seems to be that if something breaks, the user is at fault for using something called “unstable”. I.e. it’s not positioned as a way for the casual user to keep using up-to-date software that’d still be smoke-tested enough that you don’t need to be an enthusiast who can resurrect an occasional broken system. 2) While there probably in practice is better security coverage than in testing and backports, formally there still isn’t security support per https://www.debian.org/security/faq#unstable https://www.debian.org/security/faq#unstable . (I do recognize your HN handle and know you know this, but I’m providing the link for other readers.)
  - lamby 9y ago
    > it’s not positioned as a way for the casual user Indeed. Any crazy ideas on how to remedy this? :)
    - hsivonen 9y ago
      Repurposing testing as such a distro (not calling it “testing”). Discontinuing stable (i.e. leaving the enterprise use case to Red Hat and SuSE) if the security team doesn’t have capacity to support both.
      - lamby 9y ago
        That's a huge ask. My query was really about "rebranding" unstable.
        hsivonen 9y ago
        When suggesting that Debian provide a security-supported release stream other than stable, the usual response is that the security team doesn’t have the capacity to support another one. That why I pointed out unprompted that I’d cut stable if there isn’t capacity for multiple security-supported channels. I realize it would be a big change for Debian.
        hsivonen 9y ago
        Also: unstable can’t be the channel for casual users with rebranding, since there needs to be some smoke testing channel before the one for casual users.