3 ms·

What are the advantages of using Debian testing/sid rolling release instead of a regular rolling release distro (say, Arch)?

brnt 3y ago
What's irregular about Debian, and why would I use Arch instead of it?
- Corsome 3y ago
  I rather meant irregular with regards to Debian Sid not Debian in general. Arch only has rolling release mode so everyone is using the latest (thus any potential issue in Arch will affect bigger % of Arch users) while Debian has stable and testing and I was wondering if that'd make Sid less stable for practical use (since "it's not stable"). I don't want to start a distro war here, just wondering about some anecdata of actual distro users.
  - type0 3y ago
    Anecdata, if you aren't advanced user with new hw, Sid might be more robust, otherwise Arch is superior in almost any way. I wish it wasn't, I like Debian community more, it is less elitist.
  - brnt 3y ago
    I'd think that both distros work with upstream as much as possible when bugs are found. I'm too lazy to do it, but you could check both distro's bugtrackers for activity to know if one really generates more checking than the other, but I'd be surprised if in practice there's a big difference. Maybe pick a few packages, see how fast fixes are merged?
toyg 3y ago
Debian Sid is the original rolling release. Its advantage is is that you are on a rolling-release distro but it's still Debian, so all the system knowledge you accrue will apply seamlessly to production Debian servers. Most rolling-release distros, on the other hand, are typically not used on production servers.
- dunno7456 3y ago
  Also, packages are tested in sid/unstable and migrates to testing which then becomes the new stable when it's ready. And packages are tested across releases, enabling one to dist-upgrade to a new version of the system easily. I think it's piuparts that does this job of testing packages among themselves too.
- JohnnyDoe737 3y ago
  Sid is not a rolling release. This is a common misconception. In preparation for a new stable release, it goes through what is effectively a package freeze. Maintainers are discouraged from updating packages in Sid in order to focus on the new release. So almost no new updates are uploaded to the repositories until Stable is finally out.
  - ilyt 3y ago
    That's not exactly a hard rule, just stuff maintainers do because it is far easier to still have normal flow of unstable -> testing for the freeze period, and keeping 2 ("actual unstable" + "unstable on the way to the new release") would be a big burden for maintainers.
    - JohnnyDoe737 3y ago
      Correct. This is why I said “effectively”. At the end of the day, Unstable does run behind during the freeze period. Same for Testing, obviously
rollcat 3y ago
Like toyg says, I really enjoyed having a familiar working environment both on servers and on my workstation. When big changes would come around (like the transition from SysV init to systemd), I'd start getting hands-on experience early, and upgrade production with more confidence. Between testing/sid/experimental you also got the choice of running "somewhat stable" vs "bleeding edge"; I'd usually stick to testing (except around the freeze leading up to a release).
- type0 3y ago
  Most Debian users are advised against using testing and should use Sid instead if new packages are neeed 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...

brnt 3y ago

What's irregular about Debian, and why would I use Arch instead of it?

Corsome 3y ago
I rather meant irregular with regards to Debian Sid not Debian in general. Arch only has rolling release mode so everyone is using the latest (thus any potential issue in Arch will affect bigger % of Arch users) while Debian has stable and testing and I was wondering if that'd make Sid less stable for practical use (since "it's not stable"). I don't want to start a distro war here, just wondering about some anecdata of actual distro users.
- type0 3y ago
  Anecdata, if you aren't advanced user with new hw, Sid might be more robust, otherwise Arch is superior in almost any way. I wish it wasn't, I like Debian community more, it is less elitist.
- brnt 3y ago
  I'd think that both distros work with upstream as much as possible when bugs are found. I'm too lazy to do it, but you could check both distro's bugtrackers for activity to know if one really generates more checking than the other, but I'd be surprised if in practice there's a big difference. Maybe pick a few packages, see how fast fixes are merged?

toyg 3y ago

Debian Sid is the original rolling release. Its advantage is is that you are on a rolling-release distro but it's still Debian, so all the system knowledge you accrue will apply seamlessly to production Debian servers. Most rolling-release distros, on the other hand, are typically not used on production servers.

dunno7456 3y ago
Also, packages are tested in sid/unstable and migrates to testing which then becomes the new stable when it's ready. And packages are tested across releases, enabling one to dist-upgrade to a new version of the system easily. I think it's piuparts that does this job of testing packages among themselves too.
JohnnyDoe737 3y ago
Sid is not a rolling release. This is a common misconception. In preparation for a new stable release, it goes through what is effectively a package freeze. Maintainers are discouraged from updating packages in Sid in order to focus on the new release. So almost no new updates are uploaded to the repositories until Stable is finally out.
- ilyt 3y ago
  That's not exactly a hard rule, just stuff maintainers do because it is far easier to still have normal flow of unstable -> testing for the freeze period, and keeping 2 ("actual unstable" + "unstable on the way to the new release") would be a big burden for maintainers.
  - JohnnyDoe737 3y ago
    Correct. This is why I said “effectively”. At the end of the day, Unstable does run behind during the freeze period. Same for Testing, obviously

rollcat 3y ago

Like toyg says, I really enjoyed having a familiar working environment both on servers and on my workstation. When big changes would come around (like the transition from SysV init to systemd), I'd start getting hands-on experience early, and upgrade production with more confidence. Between testing/sid/experimental you also got the choice of running "somewhat stable" vs "bleeding edge"; I'd usually stick to testing (except around the freeze leading up to a release).

type0 3y ago
Most Debian users are advised against using testing and should use Sid instead if new packages are neeed 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...