4 ms·

I know the Debian project recommends against promoting the unstable Sid release for general (non-dev/maintainer) users, but IMO about as risky as running Arch L

I know the Debian project recommends against promoting the unstable Sid release for general (non-dev/maintainer) users, but IMO about as risky as running Arch Linux, i.e., quite safe. Debian Sid is the main initial entry point for new packages and so a rolling release which only pauses for a bit once every two years during the freeze for the stable releases. Compared to Arch Linux it has a few advantages, like e.g., it actually cares about recording exact and sane versioned break/depends/conflicts so upgrading a system after year(s) will work out just fine without getting ones hand dirty. Further they track and install the kernel under a correctly ABI versioned path, so you can pull an upgrade with a new kernel and then still load a module from the currently booted kernel just fine, no reboot required, same for libraries. I mean I like Arch Linux, don't get me wrong it's my second favorite distro for sure, but having to immediately reboot after most updates as otherwise half the programs or kernel functionality is unavailable is a bit of a nuisance.

ASalazarMX 4y ago
Eh. I used Debian Sid for a year, and regular updates broke it two times in that period. For regular users, that would be worse than the Windows 11 "telemetry".
- mpol 4y ago
  Can confirm with my experience. I used it for three years, inbetween two stable releases during the switch from SysV init to systemd. It all fell apart quite bad with many things breaking. I switched to a different distro. I hope the people from Vanilla OS do some QA before pushing packages.
goodpoint 4y ago
If anything it's much less risky.
jcelerier 4y ago
> I know the Debian project recommends against promoting the unstable Sid release for general (non-dev/maintainer) users, but IMO about as risky as running Arch Linux, i.e., quite safe. I used to use debian stable, then testing, then sid, then migrated to Arch and Arch has been definitely more stable than testing and sid. I never had big issues with Arch but Debian more than a few time gave me updates that entirely broke my system to the point of not booting anymore and not being able to fix it with a recovery USB
- capableweb 4y ago
  Same here but with Ubuntu and only using the "stable" version. Ubuntu updates have broken my systems over time many times since I started using it around version 9.04 or so, and stopped using it version 16 or 17. Started using Arch after that and the only breakages that have happened since then have been when I've been over-confident in major changes I'm making to my boot process. Never have a normal upgrade broken my system. The experience have been the same for both my desktop and laptop setups, and I'm starting to use Arch for my servers now too.
- tlamponi 4y ago
  > I never had big issues with Arch but Debian more than a few time gave me updates that entirely broke my system to the point of not booting anymore and not being able to fix it with a recovery USB. Ha, I have the exact opposite experience - one can get (un)lucky on any OS it seems..
silisili 4y ago
While I like Debian and don't think running Sid is necessarily a bad thing, I think it's unfair to say as risky as Arch. Arch is the most stable system I've ever used, by far. Debian Sid has broken for me in the past, and I didn't even use it that long.
massysett 4y ago
> a rolling release which only pauses for a bit once every two years during the freeze for the stable releases People say this a lot but I disagree. Debian Sid is not a rolling release. Debian is a project that produces releases of Debian GNU/Linux. Those releases are then supported for many years. As a development tool for the production of those stable releases, Debian also has 'testing', 'unstable', and 'experimental'. The key difference is that Sid is not a product for Debian. Debian makes no claim to support Sid. Occasionally it breaks, and that's just part of using it, too bad. In contrast, for a true rolling release distribution like Arch, the rolling release is the product. It's not just a tool the distribution uses for the production of something else - indeed, Arch has no stable releases. I don't say this as a criticism of Debian - to the contrary, I have used both distributions quite a bit. I just think it's a mistake to tell people Sid is rolling release. If you want a rolling release distribution, use Arch. Use Sid if you're a Debian developer and need to...otherwise I honestly can't find much of a reason to use Sid. When I'm on Debian and need to get newer packages, there are other ways to do this that don't involve turning your whole system over to the churn of constant package updates (e.g. backports.)
- yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
  I dunno, I get that there's a distinction between what the product officially supports and doesn't, but if something breaks in sid, I would expect them to still want to fix it because that's the thing that will eventually become a release. It's just theoretically more likely to break in the first place because it is after all the unstable channel. > there are other ways to do this that don't involve turning your whole system over to the churn of constant package updates I mean, that's no different than Arch or any other rolling release distribution.
  - massysett 4y ago
    No, there is no way to have a stable system in Arch. They don’t recommend installing any new packages unless your entire system is up to date. There is also no stable way to get just security updates while leaving the rest of the system stable.

ASalazarMX 4y ago

Eh. I used Debian Sid for a year, and regular updates broke it two times in that period. For regular users, that would be worse than the Windows 11 "telemetry".

mpol 4y ago
Can confirm with my experience. I used it for three years, inbetween two stable releases during the switch from SysV init to systemd. It all fell apart quite bad with many things breaking. I switched to a different distro. I hope the people from Vanilla OS do some QA before pushing packages.

goodpoint 4y ago

If anything it's much less risky.

jcelerier 4y ago

> I know the Debian project recommends against promoting the unstable Sid release for general (non-dev/maintainer) users, but IMO about as risky as running Arch Linux, i.e., quite safe. I used to use debian stable, then testing, then sid, then migrated to Arch and Arch has been definitely more stable than testing and sid. I never had big issues with Arch but Debian more than a few time gave me updates that entirely broke my system to the point of not booting anymore and not being able to fix it with a recovery USB

capableweb 4y ago
Same here but with Ubuntu and only using the "stable" version. Ubuntu updates have broken my systems over time many times since I started using it around version 9.04 or so, and stopped using it version 16 or 17. Started using Arch after that and the only breakages that have happened since then have been when I've been over-confident in major changes I'm making to my boot process. Never have a normal upgrade broken my system. The experience have been the same for both my desktop and laptop setups, and I'm starting to use Arch for my servers now too.
tlamponi 4y ago
> I never had big issues with Arch but Debian more than a few time gave me updates that entirely broke my system to the point of not booting anymore and not being able to fix it with a recovery USB. Ha, I have the exact opposite experience - one can get (un)lucky on any OS it seems..

silisili 4y ago

While I like Debian and don't think running Sid is necessarily a bad thing, I think it's unfair to say as risky as Arch. Arch is the most stable system I've ever used, by far. Debian Sid has broken for me in the past, and I didn't even use it that long.

massysett 4y ago

> a rolling release which only pauses for a bit once every two years during the freeze for the stable releases People say this a lot but I disagree. Debian Sid is not a rolling release. Debian is a project that produces releases of Debian GNU/Linux. Those releases are then supported for many years. As a development tool for the production of those stable releases, Debian also has 'testing', 'unstable', and 'experimental'. The key difference is that Sid is not a product for Debian. Debian makes no claim to support Sid. Occasionally it breaks, and that's just part of using it, too bad. In contrast, for a true rolling release distribution like Arch, the rolling release is the product. It's not just a tool the distribution uses for the production of something else - indeed, Arch has no stable releases. I don't say this as a criticism of Debian - to the contrary, I have used both distributions quite a bit. I just think it's a mistake to tell people Sid is rolling release. If you want a rolling release distribution, use Arch. Use Sid if you're a Debian developer and need to...otherwise I honestly can't find much of a reason to use Sid. When I'm on Debian and need to get newer packages, there are other ways to do this that don't involve turning your whole system over to the churn of constant package updates (e.g. backports.)

yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
I dunno, I get that there's a distinction between what the product officially supports and doesn't, but if something breaks in sid, I would expect them to still want to fix it because that's the thing that will eventually become a release. It's just theoretically more likely to break in the first place because it is after all the unstable channel. > there are other ways to do this that don't involve turning your whole system over to the churn of constant package updates I mean, that's no different than Arch or any other rolling release distribution.
- massysett 4y ago
  No, there is no way to have a stable system in Arch. They don’t recommend installing any new packages unless your entire system is up to date. There is also no stable way to get just security updates while leaving the rest of the system stable.