5 ms·

Testing this out in a VM. I want to move away from Ubuntu (honestly, from SNAPs)

by fb03 3y ago

troad 3y ago
I'm also considering this, but I'm a little afraid of being stuck in the slow lane when it comes to software updates. I'm aware of Backports, but I'm led to believe it has a somewhat limited selection. Perhaps this is a good opportunity to try a combination of Debian, for general system stability, and Nix, for specific tools where I need newer releases? Has anyone tried this combination before? If so, how did you find it?
- Tuna-Fish 3y ago
  If you want to run a desktop system, I'd recommend Pop! OS. Right now, they seem to be the distro that cares the most about desktop experience.
- cardanome 3y ago
  Why not use Linux Mint? It is Ubuntu-based but without the bad parts like snap. So you get to keep access to all the Ubuntu packages but also your sanity.
  - leesalminen 3y ago
    I’ve been maintaining a machine deployed to my mother-in-law’s house for ~4 years with Mint. She went from needing tech support every time I was at her house to never overnight. I highly recommend Mint for this scenario.
- aragilar 3y ago
  Is this a desktop/laptop? You can always run unstable if you think stable is too old (I run unstable on my dev systems, and stable on servers/anything I want to setup and let run). FYI, if you use a Ubuntu LTS release, then unless you always run the latest LTS, the majority of the packages (being in universe) will actually be older than Debian stable (and will always be older then Debian unstable).
  - pja 3y ago
    I’d suggest testing over unstable as very occasionally broken packages get pushed to unstable. Testing has a week or two delay, which usually catches such problems.
    - sillystuff 3y ago
      If you decide to run testing, be aware that while testing does get updates that address security issues after those updates work their way into testing from unstable, it does not explicitly get security updates. Pinning some security sensitive packages to stable or unstable might be worth considering. E.g., if running testing on a client, pin firefox and extensions to stable + stable-security (note, globbing works too): /etc/apt/preferences.d/firefox: Package: firefox-esr Pin: release a=stable Pin-Priority: 999 Package: firefox-esr Pin: release a=stable-security Pin-Priority: 999 Package: webext-ublock-origin-firefox Pin: release a=stable Pin-Priority: 999 Package: webext-ublock-origin-firefox Pin: release a=stable-security Pin-Priority: 999 The above priorities will not downgrade to stable from testing if the packages are already installed. To downgrade priority needs to be >= 1000. See 'man 5 apt_preferences'. If priority >= 1000, probably best to only do that temporarily, then adjust to lower to prevent setting a landmine for your future-self. If there are only a couple things you want to update to newer versions that are not in backports, you can just run stable, and pin those packages to versions in testing or unstable (but only if those packages pull in no / only a few dependencies not used by other packages). If you add e.g., testing/unstable sources to a stable system, add a catchall pin to force those packages to a low priority by default to prevent accidentally updating your entire system e.g., for sid: /etc/apt/preferences.d/sid: Package: * Pin: release a=unstable Pin-Priority: 10 Pinning without thinking can result in a broken system. But, I'm typing this on a box running testing (I guess stable, as of today) with packages pinned from Bullseye, Sid, and experimental and I've never had worse issues than an update being blocked due to dependency version conflict which was easily worked-around by pinning another package/removing or downgrading a pinned package; I run unattended-upgrades on all my boxes too. But, my hard rule is no scary deps e.g., a diff version of libc being pulled in, no deps shared with other packages that I would not want to have to pin to the same release (e.g., shared with any package with tons of deps itself), and no package that wants to pull in a lot of deps regardless of how benign they appear.
- vorpalhex 3y ago
  I run a mix of Debian and Arch/Manjaro. Debian is fine right up until you have to build something and find that the dep you need is too old so you have to build that from source, and that dep has a dep that's too old so you have to... basically build hell. Arch seems to not have these problems but is a hair buggier on occasion.
  - malkia 3y ago
    backports?
- blihp 3y ago
  You can run a reasonably current Debian install by just switching to the testing repos after you install a stable release. This mostly works pretty well but occasionally[1] you'll have an issue. While you could get absolutely up to the minute software (from a Debian standpoint) using the sid (i.e. unstable) repos, I wouldn't recommend it as breakage is quite common there as they are working through various packing issues and that repo lives up to its name. [1] every couple of years in my experience... typically as they're getting closer to a new release and package breaking changes are needed/slip through.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- chungy 3y ago
  Combining Debian with Nix or Guix is a fairly excellent way to go. Stable OS base, selective bleeding-edge apps (or hell, multiple runtime versions that would otherwise conflict). Win-win.
- realitythreek 3y ago
  What packages are you concerned about? Do you use flatpaks?
secondcoming 3y ago
I tried the same move but I couldn’t find any reason to permanently move to Debian. The biggest problem is that some of the package versions are quite old. Ubuntu is far better when it comes to software updates. The snap stuff is crap though.
- samtheprogram 3y ago
  Just use Debian testing. I've essentially been running Bookworm for about year now (that's actually the version name used in my apt conf). Ubuntu is pretty close to Debian testing version-wise.
- Kwpolska 3y ago
  Were you trying out Sid, or stable/testing? Stable tends to contain ancient software, but sid should be recent enough.
  - pessimizer 3y ago
    I suspect that a lot of people who are saying that Debian is behind don't understand Debian. for them: Whatever you download is going to be "Debian Stable." Debian Stable is as fresh and up-to-date as it's ever going to be at this moment, but it will not change significantly in the future, because its goal is stability. You throw it on something you want to run for years and not crash. If you don't mind your system crashing every once an a while because you like new stuff, you use "Debian Testing." There is no place to download this directly from Debian, although some third-parties (like Canonical with Ubuntu) distribute customized versions of it. The way you get a non-customized version is by installing Debian Stable, changing sources.list to point at Testing (which you can do as "testing" or by its nickname), then dist-upgrading. Debian Testing is being tested to be the next Stable. "Debian Unstable" afaict is where individual pieces of software are being tested to go into Testing. Nobody should be running it unless they are contributing to Debian, although there are apt-get masters who know exactly what they're doing who will pull bleeding edge packages from unstable individually. About the nicknames: Stable, Testing, and Unstable aren't releases, they're an indication of the current status of a release. Each release has its own goofy name. "Bookworm" has just moved from Testing to Stable. "Bullseye," which until just now was Stable, has now become "Oldstable." Also important is the "[yourrelease]-backports" repo, which Stable users can add to take newer packages from Testing that are 99% certain not to mess with the stability of Stable. Stable + backports is a compromise between Stable and Testing for people who want new stuff that doesn't break things. I'm sure most people know all of that, but 1) when it comes to things like this people are often afraid to ask because they're afraid they'll look stupid, and 2) the Debian website is very utilitarian and not marketing oriented, so there's no clear entry point for people who don't already know what they're looking for.

Testing this out in a VM. I want to move away from Ubuntu (honestly, from SNAPs)

by fb03 3y ago

Testing this out in a VM. I want to move away from Ubuntu (honestly, from SNAPs)

I'm also considering this, but I'm a little afraid of being stuck in the slow lane when it comes to software updates. I'm aware of Backports, but I'm led to believe it has a somewhat limited selection. Perhaps this is a good opportunity to try a combination of Debian, for general system stability, and Nix, for specific tools where I need newer releases? Has anyone tried this combination before? If so, how did you find it?

Tuna-Fish 3y ago
If you want to run a desktop system, I'd recommend Pop! OS. Right now, they seem to be the distro that cares the most about desktop experience.
cardanome 3y ago
Why not use Linux Mint? It is Ubuntu-based but without the bad parts like snap. So you get to keep access to all the Ubuntu packages but also your sanity.
- leesalminen 3y ago
  I’ve been maintaining a machine deployed to my mother-in-law’s house for ~4 years with Mint. She went from needing tech support every time I was at her house to never overnight. I highly recommend Mint for this scenario.
aragilar 3y ago
Is this a desktop/laptop? You can always run unstable if you think stable is too old (I run unstable on my dev systems, and stable on servers/anything I want to setup and let run). FYI, if you use a Ubuntu LTS release, then unless you always run the latest LTS, the majority of the packages (being in universe) will actually be older than Debian stable (and will always be older then Debian unstable).
- pja 3y ago
  I’d suggest testing over unstable as very occasionally broken packages get pushed to unstable. Testing has a week or two delay, which usually catches such problems.
  - sillystuff 3y ago
    If you decide to run testing, be aware that while testing does get updates that address security issues after those updates work their way into testing from unstable, it does not explicitly get security updates. Pinning some security sensitive packages to stable or unstable might be worth considering. E.g., if running testing on a client, pin firefox and extensions to stable + stable-security (note, globbing works too): /etc/apt/preferences.d/firefox: Package: firefox-esr Pin: release a=stable Pin-Priority: 999 Package: firefox-esr Pin: release a=stable-security Pin-Priority: 999 Package: webext-ublock-origin-firefox Pin: release a=stable Pin-Priority: 999 Package: webext-ublock-origin-firefox Pin: release a=stable-security Pin-Priority: 999 The above priorities will not downgrade to stable from testing if the packages are already installed. To downgrade priority needs to be >= 1000. See 'man 5 apt_preferences'. If priority >= 1000, probably best to only do that temporarily, then adjust to lower to prevent setting a landmine for your future-self. If there are only a couple things you want to update to newer versions that are not in backports, you can just run stable, and pin those packages to versions in testing or unstable (but only if those packages pull in no / only a few dependencies not used by other packages). If you add e.g., testing/unstable sources to a stable system, add a catchall pin to force those packages to a low priority by default to prevent accidentally updating your entire system e.g., for sid: /etc/apt/preferences.d/sid: Package: * Pin: release a=unstable Pin-Priority: 10 Pinning without thinking can result in a broken system. But, I'm typing this on a box running testing (I guess stable, as of today) with packages pinned from Bullseye, Sid, and experimental and I've never had worse issues than an update being blocked due to dependency version conflict which was easily worked-around by pinning another package/removing or downgrading a pinned package; I run unattended-upgrades on all my boxes too. But, my hard rule is no scary deps e.g., a diff version of libc being pulled in, no deps shared with other packages that I would not want to have to pin to the same release (e.g., shared with any package with tons of deps itself), and no package that wants to pull in a lot of deps regardless of how benign they appear.
vorpalhex 3y ago
I run a mix of Debian and Arch/Manjaro. Debian is fine right up until you have to build something and find that the dep you need is too old so you have to build that from source, and that dep has a dep that's too old so you have to... basically build hell. Arch seems to not have these problems but is a hair buggier on occasion.
- malkia 3y ago
  backports?
blihp 3y ago
You can run a reasonably current Debian install by just switching to the testing repos after you install a stable release. This mostly works pretty well but occasionally[1] you'll have an issue. While you could get absolutely up to the minute software (from a Debian standpoint) using the sid (i.e. unstable) repos, I wouldn't recommend it as breakage is quite common there as they are working through various packing issues and that repo lives up to its name. [1] every couple of years in my experience... typically as they're getting closer to a new release and package breaking changes are needed/slip through.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
chungy 3y ago
Combining Debian with Nix or Guix is a fairly excellent way to go. Stable OS base, selective bleeding-edge apps (or hell, multiple runtime versions that would otherwise conflict). Win-win.
realitythreek 3y ago
What packages are you concerned about? Do you use flatpaks?

secondcoming 3y ago

I tried the same move but I couldn’t find any reason to permanently move to Debian. The biggest problem is that some of the package versions are quite old. Ubuntu is far better when it comes to software updates. The snap stuff is crap though.

samtheprogram 3y ago
Just use Debian testing. I've essentially been running Bookworm for about year now (that's actually the version name used in my apt conf). Ubuntu is pretty close to Debian testing version-wise.
Kwpolska 3y ago
Were you trying out Sid, or stable/testing? Stable tends to contain ancient software, but sid should be recent enough.
- pessimizer 3y ago
  I suspect that a lot of people who are saying that Debian is behind don't understand Debian. for them: Whatever you download is going to be "Debian Stable." Debian Stable is as fresh and up-to-date as it's ever going to be at this moment, but it will not change significantly in the future, because its goal is stability. You throw it on something you want to run for years and not crash. If you don't mind your system crashing every once an a while because you like new stuff, you use "Debian Testing." There is no place to download this directly from Debian, although some third-parties (like Canonical with Ubuntu) distribute customized versions of it. The way you get a non-customized version is by installing Debian Stable, changing sources.list to point at Testing (which you can do as "testing" or by its nickname), then dist-upgrading. Debian Testing is being tested to be the next Stable. "Debian Unstable" afaict is where individual pieces of software are being tested to go into Testing. Nobody should be running it unless they are contributing to Debian, although there are apt-get masters who know exactly what they're doing who will pull bleeding edge packages from unstable individually. About the nicknames: Stable, Testing, and Unstable aren't releases, they're an indication of the current status of a release. Each release has its own goofy name. "Bookworm" has just moved from Testing to Stable. "Bullseye," which until just now was Stable, has now become "Oldstable." Also important is the "[yourrelease]-backports" repo, which Stable users can add to take newer packages from Testing that are 99% certain not to mess with the stability of Stable. Stable + backports is a compromise between Stable and Testing for people who want new stuff that doesn't break things. I'm sure most people know all of that, but 1) when it comes to things like this people are often afraid to ask because they're afraid they'll look stupid, and 2) the Debian website is very utilitarian and not marketing oriented, so there's no clear entry point for people who don't already know what they're looking for.