crazy how testing is not for production. next thing you're tellling me unstable isn't stable smh /s
Linux
A community for everything relating to the linux operating system
Also check out [email protected]
Original icon base courtesy of [email protected] and The GIMP
I mean you'd still expect that critical security fixes would land in testing, no?
Why bother? Backporting security updates or updating packages is work and in case of debian often unpaid. Trixie is for testing new packages and configurations, does not make a ton of sense to keep everything up to date.
it would be nice, but i only expect them to arrive with the regular package updates, i.e. when a new version of cups with the fix in it is released, not an extra quicker fix from the distro maintainer.
Yeah, using Testing directly is a bad idea. Instead pick a distro based on ~~Testing - like LMDE (Linux Mint Debian Edition);~~ or if you really need bleeding edge use Sid instead, but be aware that it was named after the child who breaks toys for a reason.
EDIT - as the comments say LMDE is based on Stable. In my defence when I used it it was still based on Testing. (And it was a rolling release. Yup, LMDE "1" times.)
Linux mint debian edition is not based on testijg, but rather on stable*.
This misconception may be caused by the fact that the latest debian stable, has newer packages than many of the older-but-not-ancient ubuntu releases, which were originally based off of debian sid.
*I cannot find a first party source for this, only third party
Linux Mint Debian Edition 6 hits beta with reassuringly little drama. Think Debian 12 plus Mint's polish and a friendlier UX for non-techies
https://www.theregister.com/2023/09/13/linux_mint_debian_edition_hands_on/
I fixed it, based on info that you and @[email protected] provided. Thanks you both for pointing this out!
(The misconception is actually outdated info. LMDE 1 lasted a really long time, and it was Testing-based.)
I cannot find a first party source for this, only third party
I found info in the Linux Mint forums about this. Not quite first party source as it's just user discussion, but still closer.
Maybe it's just been good luck, or maybe I pay enough attention to what apt is going to do and know how to deal with it but I've been daily driving sid for years and am convinced it's more stable than arch based on friends I have that run arch...maybe it's just I'm more experienced but it really doesn't break that much. Obviously ymmv.
I think that it's partially due to Debian's focus on stability. If they call it "stable" it's rock solid; if they call it "unstable" it's still fairly usable, it's just the 0.1% odds that it'll evoke Cthulhu in the process.
In my Sid times I managed to break it, but to be fair it was more like a Frankendebian at that point.
How are fedora or SUSE valid alternatives "from the same repos"? They're not even based on Debian or Debian repos?
Maybe they use OpenSUSE's https://openbuildservice.org/. It can handle multiple distributions. It's like the AUR without touting it to be the second coming of Christ.
Sorry. I meant if you wanted to use only packages from one set of repositories/one distro, for if you were looking for lower level packages like the kernel or desktop environment to be updated.
PSA for Debian Testing users: read the wiki
https://wiki.debian.org/DebianTesting
Control-F security
returns 18 results. This is well known and there's even instructions on how to get faster updates in testing if you want.
Stick to stable for production. Patches for vulnerabilities will go to stable asap. That's where you want them, not testing or unstable.