5 ms·

> Up-to-dateness I've read this at least a dozen of times, mostly on HN, and mostly by Archlinux advocates. Many people seem to ignore that Debian testing and

> Up-to-dateness I've read this at least a dozen of times, mostly on HN, and mostly by Archlinux advocates. Many people seem to ignore that Debian testing and Debian unstable are continuously updated (rolling releases). Please stop propagating false claims that taint Archlinux's community reputation.

jhardy54 6y ago
Have you tried running Debian unstable (Sid)? If not, I'd suggest you try it before advocating that it's comparable to running Arch. I think the parent comment was silly, but let's not pretend that Sid is a meant to be used as a daily driver.
- rscho 6y ago
  Testing is usually around 2 weeks behind unstable, and I use it as my daily driver.
  - sam_lowry_ 6y ago
    Except the kernel, unlike in Arch.
  - jhardy54 6y ago
    I'm not familiar with any evidence of that, but I'd like to point out that Debian unstable has a higher percentage of outdated packages than Arch. Compare "outdated projects percentage": - https://repology.org/repository/debian_unstable https://repology.org/repository/debian_unstable - https://repology.org/repository/arch https://repology.org/repository/arch
    - soraminazuki 6y ago
      Looking at that data, Debian unstable maintains roughly 3x more packages than Arch official.
      - jhardy54 6y ago
        That's correct, although "maintains" is questionable since Debian testing/unstable aren't meant to be used as daily drivers.
        soraminazuki 6y ago
        That's not how it works. Debian maintainers maintains packages from the very beginning of the process. They won't just wait until a package has entered stable. Moreover, when comparing different distributions, it would make more sense to have a closer look at the release process rather than compare how they label their packages. Since Debian tests its packages for a longer period of time than Arch, Debian testing should be just as stable as Arch stable.
        jhardy54 6y ago
        I think we're using the word "maintains" differently. Packages in Sid have no guarantees that they'll work, no security team, and no support system if you get stuck. Sid isn't meant to be used as a daily driver, and if your computer stops working that will be expected in Sid but a gigantic bug in Arch. > Debian testing should be just as stable as Arch stable Sure, but how up-to-date is Debian testing when compared to Arch?
        soraminazuki 6y ago
        > Packages in Sid have no guarantees that they'll work Guarantee is a strong word. Can Arch guarantee this? Occasional breakage is bound to happen with bleeding-edge rolling releases. > no security team Weaker guarantees than stable, but that doesn't mean Debian doesn't handle security issues in unstable or testing. It'll be too late if they start dealing with security issues once a package enters stable. > no support system Actually, support is the same for any Debian release. https://www.debian.org/support https://www.debian.org/support > Sid isn't meant to be used as a daily driver That shouldn't matter much for people who're willing to use Arch as a daily driver. > if your computer stops working that will be expected in Sid but a gigantic bug in Arch A gigantic bug but still happens nonetheless. > Sure, but how up-to-date is Debian testing when compared to Arch? According to repology, Debian testing has twice the number of latest packages than Arch official [1]. Considering that packages of higher importance tend to be more actively maintained, I'd assume that Debian won't be significantly behind the latest release for packages that exist in both Arch official and Debian. [1] https://repology.org/repository/debian_testing https://repology.org/repository/debian_testing
- mortehu 6y ago
  I've run it on all my desktop and laptop computers for 20 years and it's fine. However, the only package I upgrade automatically is Chrome. I do a full upgrade one or twice a year, and in the meantime I only upgrade packages as needed. The whole point of versioned dependencies is that you don't have to adhere to one particular snapshot. Automatically upgrading every day is not smart, since then you're virtually guaranteed to catch every breaking change. See https://wiki.debian.org/DebianUnstable#What_are_some_best_practices_for_testing.2Fsid_users.3F https://wiki.debian.org/DebianUnstable#What_are_some_best_pr...
blandflakes 6y ago
I'm a fan of both operating systems, but I have had a much more pleasant having updated versions of packages by default in Arch than by heading over to testing or unstable on Debian - in other words, the newer packages on Arch felt far more robust than the unstable packages on Debian. This leaves aside the fact that stable Debian was far more stable than Arch for me.
jcelerier 6y ago
I used to run Debian testing and for a short time sid before switching Arch, and I had to reinstall them from 6 months at worst to two years at best, because of packages always breaking, system becoming unbootable after updates, etc... In contrast, Arch has been both up-to-date and rock-solid - my current install has been carried over through three PCs since 2015.
- stjohnswarts 6y ago
  Never been brave enough to run Arch, but I've had Manjaro in a VM as a torrent/vpn/media server and it's been rock solid for like 4 years. I use ubuntu LTS for most things but I can't complain about Arch/Manjaro stability.
- icedchai 6y ago
  I used to run Arch (2011-2014ish) on a personal server. I'd generally go a few months without updates, and large batches of updates were often painful, requiring manual steps... like the move to systemd, merging /bin and /usr/bin, and others I've forgot. I have also had update issues with Ubuntu. There was a bug with Ubuntu 20.04 where a server would lose its default route when it had multiple network interfaces. And another bug where, after an update, network interfaces were renamed on a reboot rendering the server inaccessible. Is having a server with more than one network interface that unusual? I have yet to find a distribution where updates are not problematic.
  - soraminazuki 6y ago
    NixOS is designed so that updates won’t break the system in non-reversible ways. If an update didn’t work out well for you, you can always roll back to the previous version and withhold the update until you’re ready. I’ve used NixOS as a daily driver myself for years, and hadn’t needed a reinstall even once.
    - icedchai 6y ago
      That's neat and good to know! I think I'll check it out.
nh2 6y ago
There are some reasonably good metrics available at Repology: Pretty picture: https://repology.org/repositories/graphs https://repology.org/repositories/graphs Numbers for the X axis: https://repology.org/repositories/statistics/total https://repology.org/repositories/statistics/total Numbers for the Y axis: https://repology.org/repositories/statistics/newest https://repology.org/repositories/statistics/newest Summary for people who like neither pictures nor tables: * Debian Unstable (31k) has way more packages than Arch (9k without AUR), but the AUR (57k) has way more packages than Debian. * The total number of packages that are at the latest upstream version are about equal for Debian (17k) and AUR (15k). Arch (without AUR) has way less total updated packages (7k). * Arch has about the highest percentage of fully updated packages (85%), Debian is lower (72%), and the AUR is even lower (69%). * NixOS rivals the AUR in number of total packages (53k), has a big margin in total latest upstream versions over everything else (24k, thus 30% more than Debian or Arch), but does not have as high as an update percentage (79%) as as Arch. The numbers are not perfect because of split-packages and alternative packages (e.g. the AUR often has addtional `-git` variants), but they give a rough idea. Hope this helps!
nsajko 6y ago
Your comment is absurd. From the very names of "testing" and "unstable" you can tell that they're not meant for normal usage.
- soraminazuki 6y ago
  By Arch standards Debian “unstable” or “testing” would be branded “stable.” If you can choose Arch stable for normal use, then you can do the same for Debian unstable too.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Shish2k 6y ago
  Words can mean different things in different contexts - “stable” and “unstable” in Debian refer to whether or not the major version numbers of included packages are going to change, not to how buggy they are.
  - nsajko 6y ago
    https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/choosing.en.html#s3.1 https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/choosing.en.ht... > If security or stability are at all important for you: install stable. period. This is the most preferred way. > If you are a new user installing to a desktop machine, start with stable. Some of the software is quite old, but it's the least buggy environment to work in. https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/choosing.en.html#s3.1.5 https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/choosing.en.ht... > Testing has more up-to-date software than Stable, and it breaks less often than Unstable. But when it breaks, it might take a long time for things to get rectified. Sometimes this could be days and it could be months at times. It also does not have permanent security support. > Unstable has the latest software and changes a lot. Consequently, it can break at any point. However, fixes get rectified in many occasions in a couple of days [...] https://wiki.debian.org/DebianUnstable#What_are_some_best_practices_for_testing.2Fsid_users.3F https://wiki.debian.org/DebianUnstable#What_are_some_best_pr... > The most important thing is to keep in mind that you are participating in the development of Debian when you are tracking Testing or Unstable. ... Since we're comparing Debian with Arch, I'll add that Arch also has testing and staging repositories, in addition to the ones meant for normal usage.

jhardy54 6y ago

Have you tried running Debian unstable (Sid)? If not, I'd suggest you try it before advocating that it's comparable to running Arch. I think the parent comment was silly, but let's not pretend that Sid is a meant to be used as a daily driver.

rscho 6y ago
Testing is usually around 2 weeks behind unstable, and I use it as my daily driver.
- sam_lowry_ 6y ago
  Except the kernel, unlike in Arch.
- jhardy54 6y ago
  I'm not familiar with any evidence of that, but I'd like to point out that Debian unstable has a higher percentage of outdated packages than Arch. Compare "outdated projects percentage": - https://repology.org/repository/debian_unstable https://repology.org/repository/debian_unstable - https://repology.org/repository/arch https://repology.org/repository/arch
  - soraminazuki 6y ago
    Looking at that data, Debian unstable maintains roughly 3x more packages than Arch official.
    - jhardy54 6y ago
      That's correct, although "maintains" is questionable since Debian testing/unstable aren't meant to be used as daily drivers.
      - soraminazuki 6y ago
        That's not how it works. Debian maintainers maintains packages from the very beginning of the process. They won't just wait until a package has entered stable. Moreover, when comparing different distributions, it would make more sense to have a closer look at the release process rather than compare how they label their packages. Since Debian tests its packages for a longer period of time than Arch, Debian testing should be just as stable as Arch stable.
        jhardy54 6y ago
        I think we're using the word "maintains" differently. Packages in Sid have no guarantees that they'll work, no security team, and no support system if you get stuck. Sid isn't meant to be used as a daily driver, and if your computer stops working that will be expected in Sid but a gigantic bug in Arch. > Debian testing should be just as stable as Arch stable Sure, but how up-to-date is Debian testing when compared to Arch?
        soraminazuki 6y ago
        > Packages in Sid have no guarantees that they'll work Guarantee is a strong word. Can Arch guarantee this? Occasional breakage is bound to happen with bleeding-edge rolling releases. > no security team Weaker guarantees than stable, but that doesn't mean Debian doesn't handle security issues in unstable or testing. It'll be too late if they start dealing with security issues once a package enters stable. > no support system Actually, support is the same for any Debian release. https://www.debian.org/support https://www.debian.org/support > Sid isn't meant to be used as a daily driver That shouldn't matter much for people who're willing to use Arch as a daily driver. > if your computer stops working that will be expected in Sid but a gigantic bug in Arch A gigantic bug but still happens nonetheless. > Sure, but how up-to-date is Debian testing when compared to Arch? According to repology, Debian testing has twice the number of latest packages than Arch official [1]. Considering that packages of higher importance tend to be more actively maintained, I'd assume that Debian won't be significantly behind the latest release for packages that exist in both Arch official and Debian. [1] https://repology.org/repository/debian_testing https://repology.org/repository/debian_testing
mortehu 6y ago
I've run it on all my desktop and laptop computers for 20 years and it's fine. However, the only package I upgrade automatically is Chrome. I do a full upgrade one or twice a year, and in the meantime I only upgrade packages as needed. The whole point of versioned dependencies is that you don't have to adhere to one particular snapshot. Automatically upgrading every day is not smart, since then you're virtually guaranteed to catch every breaking change. See https://wiki.debian.org/DebianUnstable#What_are_some_best_practices_for_testing.2Fsid_users.3F https://wiki.debian.org/DebianUnstable#What_are_some_best_pr...

blandflakes 6y ago

I'm a fan of both operating systems, but I have had a much more pleasant having updated versions of packages by default in Arch than by heading over to testing or unstable on Debian - in other words, the newer packages on Arch felt far more robust than the unstable packages on Debian. This leaves aside the fact that stable Debian was far more stable than Arch for me.

jcelerier 6y ago

I used to run Debian testing and for a short time sid before switching Arch, and I had to reinstall them from 6 months at worst to two years at best, because of packages always breaking, system becoming unbootable after updates, etc... In contrast, Arch has been both up-to-date and rock-solid - my current install has been carried over through three PCs since 2015.

stjohnswarts 6y ago
Never been brave enough to run Arch, but I've had Manjaro in a VM as a torrent/vpn/media server and it's been rock solid for like 4 years. I use ubuntu LTS for most things but I can't complain about Arch/Manjaro stability.
icedchai 6y ago
I used to run Arch (2011-2014ish) on a personal server. I'd generally go a few months without updates, and large batches of updates were often painful, requiring manual steps... like the move to systemd, merging /bin and /usr/bin, and others I've forgot. I have also had update issues with Ubuntu. There was a bug with Ubuntu 20.04 where a server would lose its default route when it had multiple network interfaces. And another bug where, after an update, network interfaces were renamed on a reboot rendering the server inaccessible. Is having a server with more than one network interface that unusual? I have yet to find a distribution where updates are not problematic.
- soraminazuki 6y ago
  NixOS is designed so that updates won’t break the system in non-reversible ways. If an update didn’t work out well for you, you can always roll back to the previous version and withhold the update until you’re ready. I’ve used NixOS as a daily driver myself for years, and hadn’t needed a reinstall even once.
  - icedchai 6y ago
    That's neat and good to know! I think I'll check it out.

nh2 6y ago

There are some reasonably good metrics available at Repology: Pretty picture: https://repology.org/repositories/graphs https://repology.org/repositories/graphs Numbers for the X axis: https://repology.org/repositories/statistics/total https://repology.org/repositories/statistics/total Numbers for the Y axis: https://repology.org/repositories/statistics/newest https://repology.org/repositories/statistics/newest Summary for people who like neither pictures nor tables: * Debian Unstable (31k) has way more packages than Arch (9k without AUR), but the AUR (57k) has way more packages than Debian. * The total number of packages that are at the latest upstream version are about equal for Debian (17k) and AUR (15k). Arch (without AUR) has way less total updated packages (7k). * Arch has about the highest percentage of fully updated packages (85%), Debian is lower (72%), and the AUR is even lower (69%). * NixOS rivals the AUR in number of total packages (53k), has a big margin in total latest upstream versions over everything else (24k, thus 30% more than Debian or Arch), but does not have as high as an update percentage (79%) as as Arch. The numbers are not perfect because of split-packages and alternative packages (e.g. the AUR often has addtional `-git` variants), but they give a rough idea. Hope this helps!

nsajko 6y ago

Your comment is absurd. From the very names of "testing" and "unstable" you can tell that they're not meant for normal usage.

soraminazuki 6y ago
By Arch standards Debian “unstable” or “testing” would be branded “stable.” If you can choose Arch stable for normal use, then you can do the same for Debian unstable too.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Shish2k 6y ago
Words can mean different things in different contexts - “stable” and “unstable” in Debian refer to whether or not the major version numbers of included packages are going to change, not to how buggy they are.
- nsajko 6y ago
  https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/choosing.en.html#s3.1 https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/choosing.en.ht... > If security or stability are at all important for you: install stable. period. This is the most preferred way. > If you are a new user installing to a desktop machine, start with stable. Some of the software is quite old, but it's the least buggy environment to work in. https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/choosing.en.html#s3.1.5 https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/choosing.en.ht... > Testing has more up-to-date software than Stable, and it breaks less often than Unstable. But when it breaks, it might take a long time for things to get rectified. Sometimes this could be days and it could be months at times. It also does not have permanent security support. > Unstable has the latest software and changes a lot. Consequently, it can break at any point. However, fixes get rectified in many occasions in a couple of days [...] https://wiki.debian.org/DebianUnstable#What_are_some_best_practices_for_testing.2Fsid_users.3F https://wiki.debian.org/DebianUnstable#What_are_some_best_pr... > The most important thing is to keep in mind that you are participating in the development of Debian when you are tracking Testing or Unstable. ... Since we're comparing Debian with Arch, I'll add that Arch also has testing and staging repositories, in addition to the ones meant for normal usage.