Hacker News Reader

Comment by avar | Hacker News Reader

    > rename testing to something with a positive
    > connotation that doesn't suggest it's for
    > testing only.

Isn't unstable what you want to use?

The reason it's called "testing" is because it's a branch of Debian that's "in testing for stable". IIRC packages have to be 2 weeks in unstable without bugs before migrating to testing.

So it's explicitly not a bleeding edge release, but a preparation release for the next stable, which is why testing since late-2016 or so hasn't been getting any new major releases, it's been undergoing release prep.

Maybe there should be a sixth branch of Debian between unstable and testing that doesn't slow down the migration of packages bug-free for 2 weeks from unstable around release, but that seems like a lot of maintenance burden to impose on Debian.

View on HN

I always run "testing" because every time I try to run "stable" on the desktop I always end up with an outdated package that limits me one way or an other. A missing driver, missing functionality etc...

On the other hand "unstable" is way too unstable when you need a reliable environment in my experience. Packages breaking randomly etc... Completely expected of course, but I can't take that bet on a work computer for instance.

So as far as I'm concerned on the desktop "debian testing" is the one true debian. I don't even try to install stable first anymore since I'm certain I'll end up moving to testing eventually, I directly ask the setup to use the testing repos.

That's not my experience at all. Which packages have you had breaking randomly?

I've had upgrades break occasionally in unstable too. That's the nature of a rolling release though...

Of course what everyone wants is something with all the advantages of a rolling release but without the disadvantages. Ie, always have the latest version of everything, but without anything breaking in ways that affect me.

At the very least "unstable" has a name with a negative connotation. It has the air of it being the user's fault if you use it and stuff breaks.

I don't know what the practical breakage situation is, so I don't know if renaming and repositioning unstable would make more sense than doing it with testing.

My point is that it would be good for non-expert end users who like Debian's community image and who want security support to have a Debian release channel that provides fresher software with security support than stable.

Have you actually tried unstable? Granted, I haven't used it for a few years now (the only Debian boxes I have today are servers running stable), but "unstable" was actually quite reliable. Yes, it did break occasionally (mostly just minor issues with package dependencies) but those were usually easy fixes and "unstable" was actually quite usable as an everyday, desktop Linux.

If you haven't tried it, give it a shot. You may be surprised.

I used a daily-updated unstable for a while, and every so often, like once per 18 months to 2 years or so, I'd hit an early boot (grub/initramfs) bug that rendered my system unbootable. Early boot is dark magic to me, and without internet access (because my system wouldn't boot) it would take me a few hours to fix. By the time I did, someone else had filed an RC bug report which would have prevented that package from upgrading, and it was generally fixed a few hours after that. But that didn't help me fix my broken system.

That was the risk I accepted. That's what unstable is for. And you need somewhere like that to find those bugs.

But that's what you need to be able to handle if you run unstable. So I never recommend it to anyone; if anything I warn people off. If you can't make do with stable+backports, try testing. But don't try unstable unless you know enough about it to understand why you shouldn't, and still want to anyway.

Definitely don't run unstable because someone on the internet told you it was a great way to get up-to-date packages.

I've been running unstable for years, and have had what you mention happen exactly once. If you're on unstable, use apt-listbugs and don't update every day, and _generally_ you'll be fine. Don't use giant DE's like KDE that go through a lot of transitions and you'll be even better off.

No, I haven't used unstable myself.

But "have you spent the time evaluating it?" is beside the point. My point is that it would be positive to have a Debian release channel with fresh software with 1) explicit security support and 2) naming with positive connotations so that fewer people who don't need to use out-of-date "stable" used "stable" because it is the Debian release channel with the most positive-connotation name.

Asking each user individually to go against the framing of negative-connotation naming ("testing", "unstable") to get empirical data of what the actual level of breakage is wasteful. If "unstable" works so well, it shouldn't be called "unstable". Calling it "unstable" but telling people it's the solution to whatever is wrong with "stable" is a set-up for a blame-the-user excuse if something goes wrong.

But what is wrong with stable in the first place ?

What you are asking is basically to switch to a rolling cycle with guaranteed support. This is a huge change and also don't account for the fact that many people choose Debian stable specifically because of it's non-rolling cycle...

> But what is wrong with stable in the first place ?

* It's generally unpleasant for a user to know their problem has been fixed but they don't get access to the fix in a long time.

* Users using old software when they don't need to has network effects that give rise to negative externalities. See my other top-level reply: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14580042

> don't account for the fact that many people choose Debian stable specifically because of it's non-rolling cycle

My suggestion is based on the premise that there are users who choose or would like to choose Debian because of its community distro brand equity and not because Debian stable has old software. Also note that I suggested a change in the framing of testing and didn't suggest stable be dropped.

> At the very least "unstable" has a name with a negative connotation.

Have you tried running `sid`? It sounds like exactly what you're looking for. ;)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com