On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 11:51:57AM +0000, John Colvin wrote: > On Friday, 24 January 2014 at 16:14:15 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: > >On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 06:01:33AM -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > >[...] > >>While Linux isn't my primary desktop system, the desktop Linux stuff > >>I do work with has gone from Ubuntu -> Debian -> Mint. > >> > >>I left Ubuntu because Canonical was starting to piss me off, partly > >>because of their apparent obsession with being basically just an OSX > >>clone. So I went upstream to Debian. Still run Debian on my server, > >>but I abandoned it as a desktop OS partly because so much of it is > >>out of date literally before they even release it, and also because > >>once they do get a newer version of something, there's a fair chance > >>you can't actually get it without upgrading the whole OS because not > >>everything actually gets into backports > >[...] > > > >You should just run off Debian/unstable (or if you're chicken, > >testing). I do. In spite of the name, it's actually already as > >stable as your typical desktop OS with its typical occasional random > >breakage. Stable is really for those people who are running mission > >critical servers that when the OS dies, people die. That's why it's > >always "out of date", 'cos everything must be tested thoroughly > >first. For desktop users you don't need that kind of stability, and > >generally you don't want to wait that long to get software upgrades. > >So just use unstable or testing. I've been living off unstable for > >almost 15 years and have only had 1 or 2 occasions when things broke > >in a major way. That's saying a lot considering how many times I've > >had to reformat and reinstall Windows (supposedly a stable release > >version!) back when I was still stuck using it. > > > > > >T > > The thing with stability is, it's meaningless without context. The > only thing that has meaning is stability in the face of a particular > workload. > > Mission critical servers tend to have very static requirements. A > power-user's desktop has very dynamic requirements. Debian stable > will be more "stable" for the server, but the same is not > necessarily true for the desktop.
OK, but what I was getting at was that Debian 'unstable' is actually usable for daily desktop needs in spite of the name. T -- "Holy war is an oxymoron." -- Lazarus Long
