4 ms·

Right. I love Debian, but its packages are often very stale. That's why many end up using Ubuntu. And yes, I get that package review takes time, and that Debian

Right. I love Debian, but its packages are often very stale. That's why many end up using Ubuntu. And yes, I get that package review takes time, and that Debian is arguably more secure. But that's little consolation when you're dead in the water because what's packaged is too old.

jacobush 7y ago
I'd go back to Debian and their stale packages if only they had scheduled releases like Ubuntu has. Imagine Debian 19.10, 20.04 and so on, with Long Time Support on the .04 releases every other year. What a bliss.
- samueloph 7y ago
  Debian has been doing a stable release every two years since 14 years now. If you want the equivalent of a non-LTS Ubuntu release, you should use Debian Testing (besides the naming, it's pretty stable)
  - beatgammit 7y ago
    Yup, and Debian recently started committing to 5-year support cycles, so it's basically the same as Ubuntu LTS releases (can skip one, but not two releases), with the difference that Debian is released when it's ready, whereas Ubuntu is released on a schedule. Personally, I don't trust Ubuntu LTS releases until they get their first point release, and even then I'm skeptical since they're a bit more loose with package versions on stable. I do trust Debian when it first releases because they're far more rigorous in their testing, though I usually wait a week or two before doing a release upgrade just in case. I used to really like Debian testing, but I've since moved to OpenSUSE because they have a real rolling release (for my desktop) and a solid release based version (for servers). I like Debian, but testing gets a bit sketchy around release time (frozen, and then a ton of updates), and I honestly don't trust Sid aside from pulling in the odd package. I don't trust Ubuntu at all, since it has caused me far too many problems in the past.
samueloph 7y ago
Well, in this case people should have been using Debian Testing instead of Stable. But yeah it's often that people don't understand what's Debian stable and its trade offs compared to Testing and end up unhappy with it or switching to Ubuntu (which is ~very~ similar to Debian Testing).
- pm7 7y ago
  Unfortunately, Debian testing doesn't get security updates.
  - rollerrrr 7y ago
    To the best of my knowledge, this is not true. Have a link?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - pm7 7y ago
      See this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21492080 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21492080 Also, this: https://www.debian.org/security/faq.en.html#testing https://www.debian.org/security/faq.en.html#testing > there is a minimum two-day migration delay
  - hollerith 7y ago
    Good to know. From https://wiki.debian.org/Status/Testing https://wiki.debian.org/Status/Testing, here is some more detail: >there is security support for testing, but in general it cannot be expected to be of the same quality as for stable: >Updates for testing-security usually get less testing than updates for stable-security. >Updates for embargoed issues take longer because the testing security team does not have access to embargoed information. >Testing is changing all the time which increases the likelyhood of problems with the build infrastructure. Such problems can delay security updates in testing.
  - tuldia 7y ago
tuldia 7y ago
Ubuntu is nothing more than the Debian "unstable" branch with Canonical branding plus non-free packages. Compare https://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=debian https://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=debian and https://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=ubuntu https://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=ubuntu and you will realize that all the freshness of Ubuntu is build on top of what is available in Debian unstable. I don't think this idea of "Debian packages are often very outdated" still applies nowadays. One can add "testing" or "backports" channels in your /etc/apt/sources.lists.d and get "upstream version" software. Even "stable" ships fresh enough software these days. In the last case you can always get the source, update it and send a nmu back to Debian. Lets not forget that that is how open source works :)
- axaxs 7y ago
  > Ubuntu is nothing more than the Debian "unstable" branch with Canonical branding plus non-free packages. This just isn't true. Ubuntu is typically quicker to update popular packages, such as desktop environments, kernel, etc. Debian unstable, even experimental, are often months behind on Gnome, for example.
  - tuldia 7y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu#History
TeMPOraL 7y ago
If Ubuntu is the not stale alternative to Debian (stable), then I can't imagine how bad the situation is there. I often build software myself because Ubuntu is very often stale.
- mirimir 7y ago
  I've always preferred to use Debian stable just because it's stable. And because it's arguably got the latest security updates. But for Tor, I always use the Tor Project repository. Or for Docker. And then there's stuff that won't even build in Debian, because it's been developed specifically for Ubuntu.
  - PopeDotNinja 7y ago
    My former boss had us use Debian stable in production for this reason. He did not like apt-get related surprises.
- bbanyc 7y ago
  Ubuntu LTS (freezes every two years) or "regular" Ubuntu (freezes every six months)? I'm wondering if the periodic freeze-the-universe model that many distros use reflects a world that doesn't really exist anymore where distros came on DVDs (or CDs, or floppies). Whatever version you had on the disc, that's the version you're going to use. I just started playing with FreeBSD in a VM, which has a frozen base system and constantly-updated packages separate from it. This works better for software you don't think of as an "OS component" but the question then becomes where you draw the line. Or maybe it's just a fundamental disconnect between consumer-facing "move fast and break things" and enterprise-level "never break anything even if it means you can't move at all" and there's no way to make software that works for both.
  - farisjarrah 7y ago
    This isn’t how Ubuntu even works. Ubuntu doesn’t just “freeze” their operating system every two years. They are constantly delivering package, security, and hardware enablement fixes. Often the stuff that lands in Ubuntu non-lts versions end up in the lts point releases. They keep a stable base of x.x versions but they definitely backport bug fixes to x.x.x versions of their software packages. For example there was a bug in sudo like 3 weeks ago, and Ubuntu immediately issued a fix within hours of the upstream project’s fix.

jacobush 7y ago

I'd go back to Debian and their stale packages if only they had scheduled releases like Ubuntu has. Imagine Debian 19.10, 20.04 and so on, with Long Time Support on the .04 releases every other year. What a bliss.

samueloph 7y ago
Debian has been doing a stable release every two years since 14 years now. If you want the equivalent of a non-LTS Ubuntu release, you should use Debian Testing (besides the naming, it's pretty stable)
- beatgammit 7y ago
  Yup, and Debian recently started committing to 5-year support cycles, so it's basically the same as Ubuntu LTS releases (can skip one, but not two releases), with the difference that Debian is released when it's ready, whereas Ubuntu is released on a schedule. Personally, I don't trust Ubuntu LTS releases until they get their first point release, and even then I'm skeptical since they're a bit more loose with package versions on stable. I do trust Debian when it first releases because they're far more rigorous in their testing, though I usually wait a week or two before doing a release upgrade just in case. I used to really like Debian testing, but I've since moved to OpenSUSE because they have a real rolling release (for my desktop) and a solid release based version (for servers). I like Debian, but testing gets a bit sketchy around release time (frozen, and then a ton of updates), and I honestly don't trust Sid aside from pulling in the odd package. I don't trust Ubuntu at all, since it has caused me far too many problems in the past.

samueloph 7y ago

Well, in this case people should have been using Debian Testing instead of Stable. But yeah it's often that people don't understand what's Debian stable and its trade offs compared to Testing and end up unhappy with it or switching to Ubuntu (which is ~very~ similar to Debian Testing).

pm7 7y ago
Unfortunately, Debian testing doesn't get security updates.
- rollerrrr 7y ago
  To the best of my knowledge, this is not true. Have a link?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - pm7 7y ago
    See this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21492080 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21492080 Also, this: https://www.debian.org/security/faq.en.html#testing https://www.debian.org/security/faq.en.html#testing > there is a minimum two-day migration delay
- hollerith 7y ago
  Good to know. From https://wiki.debian.org/Status/Testing https://wiki.debian.org/Status/Testing, here is some more detail: >there is security support for testing, but in general it cannot be expected to be of the same quality as for stable: >Updates for testing-security usually get less testing than updates for stable-security. >Updates for embargoed issues take longer because the testing security team does not have access to embargoed information. >Testing is changing all the time which increases the likelyhood of problems with the build infrastructure. Such problems can delay security updates in testing.
- tuldia 7y ago

tuldia 7y ago

Ubuntu is nothing more than the Debian "unstable" branch with Canonical branding plus non-free packages. Compare https://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=debian https://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=debian and https://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=ubuntu https://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=ubuntu and you will realize that all the freshness of Ubuntu is build on top of what is available in Debian unstable. I don't think this idea of "Debian packages are often very outdated" still applies nowadays. One can add "testing" or "backports" channels in your /etc/apt/sources.lists.d and get "upstream version" software. Even "stable" ships fresh enough software these days. In the last case you can always get the source, update it and send a nmu back to Debian. Lets not forget that that is how open source works :)

axaxs 7y ago
> Ubuntu is nothing more than the Debian "unstable" branch with Canonical branding plus non-free packages. This just isn't true. Ubuntu is typically quicker to update popular packages, such as desktop environments, kernel, etc. Debian unstable, even experimental, are often months behind on Gnome, for example.
- tuldia 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu#History

TeMPOraL 7y ago

If Ubuntu is the not stale alternative to Debian (stable), then I can't imagine how bad the situation is there. I often build software myself because Ubuntu is very often stale.

mirimir 7y ago
I've always preferred to use Debian stable just because it's stable. And because it's arguably got the latest security updates. But for Tor, I always use the Tor Project repository. Or for Docker. And then there's stuff that won't even build in Debian, because it's been developed specifically for Ubuntu.
- PopeDotNinja 7y ago
  My former boss had us use Debian stable in production for this reason. He did not like apt-get related surprises.
bbanyc 7y ago
Ubuntu LTS (freezes every two years) or "regular" Ubuntu (freezes every six months)? I'm wondering if the periodic freeze-the-universe model that many distros use reflects a world that doesn't really exist anymore where distros came on DVDs (or CDs, or floppies). Whatever version you had on the disc, that's the version you're going to use. I just started playing with FreeBSD in a VM, which has a frozen base system and constantly-updated packages separate from it. This works better for software you don't think of as an "OS component" but the question then becomes where you draw the line. Or maybe it's just a fundamental disconnect between consumer-facing "move fast and break things" and enterprise-level "never break anything even if it means you can't move at all" and there's no way to make software that works for both.
- farisjarrah 7y ago
  This isn’t how Ubuntu even works. Ubuntu doesn’t just “freeze” their operating system every two years. They are constantly delivering package, security, and hardware enablement fixes. Often the stuff that lands in Ubuntu non-lts versions end up in the lts point releases. They keep a stable base of x.x versions but they definitely backport bug fixes to x.x.x versions of their software packages. For example there was a bug in sudo like 3 weeks ago, and Ubuntu immediately issued a fix within hours of the upstream project’s fix.