For the stuff that you really _need_ to have the latest version, you have options to install it yourself. For the rest of the system, if you don't care about having the latest updates, you get a relatively stable system that doesn't potentially change every other week.
Of course some people do prefer having the whole system on the bleeding edge -- in which case Debian is obviously not for them, and there are many other distributions that cater to their needs. But the people who use Debian made a conscious choice to keep most of the system "stable" except for the important programs that they know well enough to "maintain" the latest versions themselves.
Those options exist, but Debian doesn't really support or steer people towards them. IMO their approach compares pretty poorly to e.g. FreeBSD where you have an explicit packages/ports split and support for using ports. (E.g. installing a newer version of an application on Debian is relatively easy, but if that application needs a library then it becomes quite hard, to the point that people resort to vendoring or static builds in one form or another)
Debian's stability is legendary and well deserved.
But I have a feeling for the vast majority of people this is why snap was invented, to not be stuck on old software for a few years.
> I don't know anyone who uses Debian and actually sticks with their packaged apps.
With various indications that they more or less actually do stick to the packaged apps.
Anyway, I for one don’t think that staying with for example nginx for two years on the same version is a good idea. Even if they fix security issues, you still miss out on features.
And this is for lots of other packages.
So you're saying you do install things outside their official repos, because their official repos don't package or maintain everything you want to use?
Many people in corporate, because that removes a lot of noise in "compliance" audits - show them that you have the main and security repository enabled and do regular update checks and installs, and that's it.
For me, the exception is Docker and Kubernetes, but that's easily explainable to auditors as a business need.
Which I think proves my point.
Besides our custom kernel modules and business applications, Debian has everything these systems need and more.
I find it way cooler to use Debian on embedded systems rather than some buildroot, because it's a widely available and reproducible environment and debugging and development tools are an "apt install" away.
The thing is that even in embedded, people are starting to see the value of using libraries when writing those business applications, and they end up being the same libraries that parts of the base system will use. So either you need to align how the OS approaches those libraries with how the developer wants to, or you need a user-friendly way to have OS-managed versions and developer-managed versions coexist. Current Debian does neither of those things.
I build dwm and dmenu as well but they exist in the repos if I didn't like patching them. If I go outside the repositories that's a choice, and I think hard if I really need it on my system, or maybe a VM for isolation makes more sense if I don't trust the developer.
If one needs bleeding edge everything maybe Debian isn't the right choice. Why does everything always have to cater to the masses? Let Debian be boring for those of us who love it for what it is.
You're missing almost 1.5 years of bug fixes then (Bookworm+Unstable 0.7.2, Jun 26, 2022; Neovim stable 0.9.4, Oct 9, 2023). LSP support in particular has gotten much better in the meantime.
> If one needs bleeding edge everything maybe Debian isn't the right choice.
Stable versions are not bleeding edge.
No I'm not, I used vanilla vim without LSP until Bram (R.I.P) decided to write another vimscript, too much NIH for my taste. I'm fine with what I use and have my workflow. I'm considering trying out how Flatpaks work for me for the isolation though.
I do use Docker and even the occasional VM for complex environments and don't notice any difference in my use.
> Stable versions are not bleeding edge
Bleeding edge as in latest features.
I'd have run it anyway, because I want the latest software without of the disadvantages of keeping my entire distro rolling.
Also I make use of running software in docker a lot.
The way I see it Freecad - the thing that you're actually doing something with on the computer - is the point, the kernel and all the rest of it are just there to support that.
> Also I make use of running software in docker a lot.
Yeah, I didn't put it in my list but that's another one I see a lot.