4 ms·

As in all threads on Debian stable, I see criticisms that stable software is stale / too old. That really misses the point: this is not a bug, it's a feature of

by yaantc 7y ago

As in all threads on Debian stable, I see criticisms that stable software is stale / too old. That really misses the point: this is not a bug, it's a feature of stable! Stability doesn't only mean "lack of (big) bugs", it also mean that it's dependable: it won't change under you, and what is inside is well understood (including limitations). This require using mature enough software. In any non-trivial piece of software novelty will brings exciting new features but also regressions in some cases. There's an inherent trade-off between freshness and stability in this sense. Debian stable is made for stability in the full sense, like a Red Hat. If one prefers something more recent, but with more frequent changes, it's fine. Either use a distro with more frequent releases (e.g.: regular Ubuntu or Fedora) or even a rolling one like Arch, of Debian testing (sort of) or unstable. There's room for all of this, it's just different trade-offs. Lastly, as I've said elsewhere it's possible to mix and match. One rarely needs the latest in all, and it's possible to use stable as a base to avoid problems, and add fresh versions on top for only the software one care about. With the various languages package managers and flatpack/snapd this is becoming very easy. For some it may be a better trade-off than moving to a rolling distro.

nsomaru 7y ago
Agreed, although that last point has a few caveats, especially with regards to Debian and apt - https://wiki.debian.org/DontBreakDebian https://wiki.debian.org/DontBreakDebian
- cbolton 7y ago
  That page actually lists flatpak and snapd as recommended solutions...
  - elagost 7y ago
    I use a ton of flatpaks on my system and don't notice the difference between them and "real" packages. I use Signal, Telegram, a few games, and the Steam flatpak, which is a great way to use Steam without enabling multilib on Arch. On an Ubuntu system, snaps works great as well.
alxlaz 7y ago
This is particularly useful in the context of today's release policies. Between the ease of updating, the (perfectly justified!) "release early, release often" policy and the occasional rewrite frenzy, many open source projects never have a truly stable release. On every release, at least some of the components or new features are, at best, beta-quality. The next release (typically) solves some of the bugs, but introduces new ones -- because it includes a new (and pretty much unfinished) feature, or something got rewritten and so on. So if you're running an "unstable" system, you get a new set of bugs each time you upgrade, and a new set of workarounds, and so on. Debian's stability means that, at the very least, you get to work around one set of bugs every two years or so. It's not ideal, but a lot of people prefer it that way, and frankly, I understand where they're coming from. It is a trade-off, just like it's a trade-off to run distros with more frequent releases or a rolling-release distro.
- dmix 7y ago
  While this is true it widens the gap between stable -> unstable. So your only choice is either have really old [1] or really new. This is why I prefer Archlinux’s package selection which is nicely in between new & stable. You get the latest packages but not the alpha/beta or broken RCs. (Not to start a distro flame war, but it’s a reality of using Debian unstable is that it’s going to break often.) [1] a while back the 2yr+ old Gnome 3 package in Debian was way uglier than a new redesign HiDPI/retina-friendly version around 3.10 I believe, but took 2 yrs to show up. Which was around the time Gnome was finally catching up to Apple in the basic attention to detail at the pixel level. Which makes Debian a non-starter for Linux desktop to me, but fine for lower security servers.
  - alxlaz 7y ago
    > While this is true it widens the gap between stable -> unstable. So your only choice is either have really old [1] or really new. It does. It's not necessarily something that I consider a good approach in every way, I just understand it. I myself took it for a few years, during the Great Rush to Rewrite Everything between cca. 2012 and 2017. I used to run Gentoo (at home) and Arch (at work) up to that point but I temporarily moved over to Debian (which I hadn't used since 2007 or so) until the storm settled for a bit. Yeah, it does mean that things that are broken tend to remain broken for two years, but you also don't need a set of new workarounds for two years. I very un-fondly remember that back in 2013 or so when I said no more, my machine was perpetually broken in some way. (FWIW, I've been back on Arch on my main station for more than two years now, it's gonna be hard to start a flamewar with me by arguing about Arch's package selection :-) ). I guess it depends a lot on everyone's usage patterns, too, there's a lot of diversity in this space, more than many younger FOSS developers (and UX designers!) realize. Some of the nastier things I do to my station are deeply rooted in my first days of running Unices almost twenty years ago, and while I do my best to make sure that not all old habits die hard, it can be hard to convince people to let go of the good ones. (Of course, "good ones" is subjective, hence the flamewars. I guess 50% of my habits are good, I just don't know which 50%).
JoshuaAshton 7y ago
Or you can just select to hold that package for updates in a package manager in a competent distro that actually gets needed security and usability updates. Doesn't help that some ""stable"" packages are outright broken and won't be fixed until the next release (ie. MinGW is stuck on a broken version of 8.3 which has a buttload of compiler bugs I keep hitting)
fanf2 7y ago
Debian Backports are a convenient way to get newer software on a stable system https://backports.debian.org/Instructions/ https://backports.debian.org/Instructions/
CameronNemo 7y ago
I will also point out that a huge amount of businesses are running Cent OS and RHEL 7 right now. Buster is shiny in comparison.

by yaantc 7y ago

nsomaru 7y ago

Agreed, although that last point has a few caveats, especially with regards to Debian and apt - https://wiki.debian.org/DontBreakDebian https://wiki.debian.org/DontBreakDebian

cbolton 7y ago
That page actually lists flatpak and snapd as recommended solutions...
- elagost 7y ago
  I use a ton of flatpaks on my system and don't notice the difference between them and "real" packages. I use Signal, Telegram, a few games, and the Steam flatpak, which is a great way to use Steam without enabling multilib on Arch. On an Ubuntu system, snaps works great as well.

alxlaz 7y ago

This is particularly useful in the context of today's release policies. Between the ease of updating, the (perfectly justified!) "release early, release often" policy and the occasional rewrite frenzy, many open source projects never have a truly stable release. On every release, at least some of the components or new features are, at best, beta-quality. The next release (typically) solves some of the bugs, but introduces new ones -- because it includes a new (and pretty much unfinished) feature, or something got rewritten and so on. So if you're running an "unstable" system, you get a new set of bugs each time you upgrade, and a new set of workarounds, and so on. Debian's stability means that, at the very least, you get to work around one set of bugs every two years or so. It's not ideal, but a lot of people prefer it that way, and frankly, I understand where they're coming from. It is a trade-off, just like it's a trade-off to run distros with more frequent releases or a rolling-release distro.

dmix 7y ago
While this is true it widens the gap between stable -> unstable. So your only choice is either have really old [1] or really new. This is why I prefer Archlinux’s package selection which is nicely in between new & stable. You get the latest packages but not the alpha/beta or broken RCs. (Not to start a distro flame war, but it’s a reality of using Debian unstable is that it’s going to break often.) [1] a while back the 2yr+ old Gnome 3 package in Debian was way uglier than a new redesign HiDPI/retina-friendly version around 3.10 I believe, but took 2 yrs to show up. Which was around the time Gnome was finally catching up to Apple in the basic attention to detail at the pixel level. Which makes Debian a non-starter for Linux desktop to me, but fine for lower security servers.
- alxlaz 7y ago
  > While this is true it widens the gap between stable -> unstable. So your only choice is either have really old [1] or really new. It does. It's not necessarily something that I consider a good approach in every way, I just understand it. I myself took it for a few years, during the Great Rush to Rewrite Everything between cca. 2012 and 2017. I used to run Gentoo (at home) and Arch (at work) up to that point but I temporarily moved over to Debian (which I hadn't used since 2007 or so) until the storm settled for a bit. Yeah, it does mean that things that are broken tend to remain broken for two years, but you also don't need a set of new workarounds for two years. I very un-fondly remember that back in 2013 or so when I said no more, my machine was perpetually broken in some way. (FWIW, I've been back on Arch on my main station for more than two years now, it's gonna be hard to start a flamewar with me by arguing about Arch's package selection :-) ). I guess it depends a lot on everyone's usage patterns, too, there's a lot of diversity in this space, more than many younger FOSS developers (and UX designers!) realize. Some of the nastier things I do to my station are deeply rooted in my first days of running Unices almost twenty years ago, and while I do my best to make sure that not all old habits die hard, it can be hard to convince people to let go of the good ones. (Of course, "good ones" is subjective, hence the flamewars. I guess 50% of my habits are good, I just don't know which 50%).

JoshuaAshton 7y ago

Or you can just select to hold that package for updates in a package manager in a competent distro that actually gets needed security and usability updates. Doesn't help that some ""stable"" packages are outright broken and won't be fixed until the next release (ie. MinGW is stuck on a broken version of 8.3 which has a buttload of compiler bugs I keep hitting)

fanf2 7y ago

Debian Backports are a convenient way to get newer software on a stable system https://backports.debian.org/Instructions/ https://backports.debian.org/Instructions/

CameronNemo 7y ago

I will also point out that a huge amount of businesses are running Cent OS and RHEL 7 right now. Buster is shiny in comparison.