4 ms·

I find it very interesting that they're using Debian Testing as essentially a rolling-release distro. I did this in the past for a few years, and stopped (switc

by aposm 4y ago

I find it very interesting that they're using Debian Testing as essentially a rolling-release distro. I did this in the past for a few years, and stopped (switched to Fedora), but I am pleased to see there is at least one other group of people who think that's a reasonable setup.

pja 4y ago
I’ve been doing this for years. I generally suggest holding off on upgrades in the weeks immediately following a Debian stable release is a good idea: when everything that has been held back from testing suddenly arrives at once, bugs sometimes get missed. But otherwise, generally a really solid experience. Of course, it’s not officially supported by anyone, so when the (very) occasional bug does hit, you have to sort out rolling back to something that works yourself. Sounds like Google automated this side of things?
flas9sd 4y ago
Debian testing/unstable deserves more user and developer influx from Ubuntu castaways. Googles change to debian-testing reflects my own rite of distribution passage. I used manual /etc/apt/sources.list upgrades within Ubuntu so often, after Unity was abandoned, there was no reason to stay on Canonicals flavour. After a year on testing I went to unstable and subscribe to bugs affecting me from time to time. Usually there's either quickly a workaround or a flatpak as last resort. Not something I'd install on the family pc, but testing or unstable is a good choice for developers. Contributing to Debian and adjacent projects like GNOME and freedesktop.org got easier (or standardized?) since they all run a gitlab instance each.
- minedwiz 4y ago
  My personal dev machines have been on unstable for a couple of years now. I tried testing first, and honestly have been broken there more than I've ever been broken on unstable (which is 0 times).

4 ms·

I find it very interesting that they're using Debian Testing as essentially a rolling-release distro. I did this in the past for a few years, and stopped (switc

by aposm 4y ago

pja 4y ago
I’ve been doing this for years. I generally suggest holding off on upgrades in the weeks immediately following a Debian stable release is a good idea: when everything that has been held back from testing suddenly arrives at once, bugs sometimes get missed. But otherwise, generally a really solid experience. Of course, it’s not officially supported by anyone, so when the (very) occasional bug does hit, you have to sort out rolling back to something that works yourself. Sounds like Google automated this side of things?
flas9sd 4y ago
Debian testing/unstable deserves more user and developer influx from Ubuntu castaways. Googles change to debian-testing reflects my own rite of distribution passage. I used manual /etc/apt/sources.list upgrades within Ubuntu so often, after Unity was abandoned, there was no reason to stay on Canonicals flavour. After a year on testing I went to unstable and subscribe to bugs affecting me from time to time. Usually there's either quickly a workaround or a flatpak as last resort. Not something I'd install on the family pc, but testing or unstable is a good choice for developers. Contributing to Debian and adjacent projects like GNOME and freedesktop.org got easier (or standardized?) since they all run a gitlab instance each.
- minedwiz 4y ago
  My personal dev machines have been on unstable for a couple of years now. I tried testing first, and honestly have been broken there more than I've ever been broken on unstable (which is 0 times).