Compare https://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=debian and https://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=ubuntu and you will realize that all the freshness of Ubuntu is build on top of what is available in Debian unstable.
I don't think this idea of "Debian packages are often very outdated" still applies nowadays. One can add "testing" or "backports" channels in your /etc/apt/sources.lists.d and get "upstream version" software. Even "stable" ships fresh enough software these days.
In the last case you can always get the source, update it and send a nmu back to Debian. Lets not forget that that is how open source works :)
This just isn't true. Ubuntu is typically quicker to update popular packages, such as desktop environments, kernel, etc. Debian unstable, even experimental, are often months behind on Gnome, for example.
But for Tor, I always use the Tor Project repository. Or for Docker.
And then there's stuff that won't even build in Debian, because it's been developed specifically for Ubuntu.
I'm wondering if the periodic freeze-the-universe model that many distros use reflects a world that doesn't really exist anymore where distros came on DVDs (or CDs, or floppies). Whatever version you had on the disc, that's the version you're going to use.
I just started playing with FreeBSD in a VM, which has a frozen base system and constantly-updated packages separate from it. This works better for software you don't think of as an "OS component" but the question then becomes where you draw the line.
Or maybe it's just a fundamental disconnect between consumer-facing "move fast and break things" and enterprise-level "never break anything even if it means you can't move at all" and there's no way to make software that works for both.
Which with something relatively small and stable like sudo, is one thing. For big projects on rapid release cycles, like GNOME, it's got a much bigger impact.
Though I do see that Ubuntu does keep updating Firefox and Chromium to the latest versions in LTS, because they're so big and change so fast that backporting fixes has become practically impossible. That looks like a very rare exception to the rule; your typical Python library won't be getting that treatment.
But yeah it's often that people don't understand what's Debian stable and its trade offs compared to Testing and end up unhappy with it or switching to Ubuntu (which is ~very~ similar to Debian Testing).
Also, this: https://www.debian.org/security/faq.en.html#testing
> there is a minimum two-day migration delay
>there is security support for testing, but in general it cannot be expected to be of the same quality as for stable:
>Updates for testing-security usually get less testing than updates for stable-security.
>Updates for embargoed issues take longer because the testing security team does not have access to embargoed information.
>Testing is changing all the time which increases the likelyhood of problems with the build infrastructure. Such problems can delay security updates in testing.
How does it works? 1. Upstream release a new version, it goes to unstable. 2. Package is tested for some days in unstable and get promoted to testing.
So telling that testing doesn't get security updates is somewhat incorrect, since you are grabing recent software. But by the other hand having too recent software also has its downside ;)
https://www.debian.org/security/faq.en.html#testing
> there is a minimum two-day migration delay
Now you are making way to many assumptions with this phrase.
Do you really think that make sense to have critical security updates for stable having to pass through the normal release cycle? :)
I'm speaking from experience that when I was using Debian testing I would usually receive security updates days after they are available for Debian stable.
Obviously security updates for stable do not go through normal release cycle.
I wasn't commenting stable security updates, but lack of timely access to security updates on testing.
Stable basically means it won't change, and says nothing about freshness. Debian has recently adopted a policy of releasing on a time basis, so it's never very stale.
Though the truly baffling bit of Debianese is "contrib" which means "this is free software but depends on non-free software." I can kinda see how it came to mean that, but it's very non-intuitive.
Personally, I don't trust Ubuntu LTS releases until they get their first point release, and even then I'm skeptical since they're a bit more loose with package versions on stable. I do trust Debian when it first releases because they're far more rigorous in their testing, though I usually wait a week or two before doing a release upgrade just in case.
I used to really like Debian testing, but I've since moved to OpenSUSE because they have a real rolling release (for my desktop) and a solid release based version (for servers). I like Debian, but testing gets a bit sketchy around release time (frozen, and then a ton of updates), and I honestly don't trust Sid aside from pulling in the odd package. I don't trust Ubuntu at all, since it has caused me far too many problems in the past.