Hi,
I certainly understand the stable model. However, if I may suggest considering a cadence option similar to Ubuntu and Fedora that provide an official release every 6 months or so.
Have a nice day
I prefer more up-to-date kernels and packages (without requiring backports).
Simply a friendly suggestion. I like Debian and your minimal installation options such as mini.iso and netinst. (I originally developed web engine on Debian in 2014).
Have Great Day,
Greg McPherran
(McPherran Web Engine)
I certainly understand the stable model. However, if I may suggest >considering a cadence option similar to Ubuntu and Fedora that provide
an official release every 6 months or so.
Hi,Hell, no ! It's already too demanding to upgrade servers every 2 years, plus backporting security patches is already too much work that we don't want to impose on ouraeves 4 times more.
I certainly understand the stable model. However, if I may suggest considering a cadence option similar to Ubuntu and Fedora that provide an official release every 6 months or so.
Hell, no ! It's already...Language please. I specifically indicated that it was merely a _friendly_ suggestion. :-) Impressed with your work and others' work to provide Debian Stable and I'm also aware of shiny new toy syndrome. :-) For server, I would use stable! But for desktop and development, I like the latest available as it's constantly improved, and with Wayland support, this is especially important. It's not the days of decades of X11 and minor updates to it. We're in an important transition phase to a new desktop environment platform.
On 10/17/2025 8:50 AM EDT thomas@goirand.fr wrote:
On Oct 16, 2025 18:09, Greg McPherran <gm@mcpherranweb.com> wrote:
Hi,
I certainly understand the stable model. However, if I may suggest considering a cadence option similar to Ubuntu and Fedora that provide an official release every 6 months or so.
Hell, no ! It's already too demanding to upgrade servers every 2 years, plus backporting security patches is already too much work that we don't want to impose on ouraeves 4 times more.
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
I am considering using unstable, and would be happy to provide feedback
on any findings. If someone could point me to the best contact for such feedback, so that I may be helpful, I would be grateful.
Greg McPherran <gm@mcpherranweb.com> writes:And I would recommend unstable over testing, for security reasons, less
I am considering using unstable, and would be happy to provide feedback(?)
on any findings. If someone could point me to the best contact for such feedback, so that I may be helpful, I would be grateful.
I would recommend testing over unstable unless you're very familiar with Linux and comfortable with your ability to roll back to previous kernels, downgrade and pin packages, and fix weird problems. Unstable doesn't break that often, but it is prone to more low-level breakage than testing is.
Le Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 09:49:20AM -0700, Russ Allbery a ‚crit :In a way, it is: when packages land in testing they have passed through
Greg McPherran <gm@mcpherranweb.com> writes:
I am considering using unstable, and would be happy to provide feedback on any findings. If someone could point me to the best contact for such feedback, so that I may be helpful, I would be grateful.(?)
I would recommend testing over unstable unless you're very familiar with Linux and comfortable with your ability to roll back to previous kernels, downgrade and pin packages, and fix weird problems. Unstable doesn't break that often, but it is prone to more low-level breakage than testing is.
And I would recommend unstable over testing, for security reasons, less
risks of packages disappearing, and bugs actually being fixed in a
timely manner.
In my 15 years of user support, a huge majority of reported problems
were with testing. But the sample might be biased by testing being the
one chosen by less experienced users, wrongly thinking it would be some
kind of middle ground between stable and unstable.
In my 15 years of user support, a huge majority of reported problems
were with testing. But the sample might be biased by testing being the
one chosen by less experienced users, wrongly thinking it would be some
kind of middle ground between stable and unstable.
I am considering using unstable, and would be happy to provide feedback on any findings. If someone could point me to the best contact for such feedback, so that I may be helpful, I would be grateful. (Introduce myself: I'm particularly focused on Rust now, but I have a background in kernels and C/C++/C# [30 yrs exp.]. I also have BSEE + post-grad MS courses).
It's generally a religious term, and the religious meaning is probably what gives it such emphasis, so, out of respect for religion(s), I generally avoid such terms. Seems to be a pattern in GNU'ish Linux:There's no language problem here.
Yes, I basically understood, although when one has never met someone, it can add a bit of harshness to the opinion. I am simply sharing yet another suggestion here. It's a free country, speak as you wish, and we also have freedom to ignore/disengage.It was a friendly opinion. Please assume good faith.
Sincerely and respectfully to you and all Debian, I'm typing from Arch using GNOME Web (same base as Safari). The latest GNOME is excellent!Rightly. Or testing maybe?
Cheers,Thanks for responding, and Cheers to you :-)
In my 15 years of user support, a huge majority of reported problemsIt sort of is a middle ground between stable and unstable. You have
were with testing. But the sample might be biased by testing being the
one chosen by less experienced users, wrongly thinking it would be some
kind of middle ground between stable and unstable.
(?) Plus,Beware, if you?re talking unstable vs. testing here, testing is the one
since both don't have a security policy, security issues get (arguably)
fixed faster on testing.
since both don't have a security policy, security issues get (arguably)I think this is either some unusual phrasing or a mistake.
fixed faster on testing.
Le Sat, Oct 18, 2025 at 04:23:07AM +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de a ‚crit :Uh... sorry. I wanted to write unstable :-/
(?) Plus,
since both don't have a security policy, security issues get (arguably) fixed faster on testing.
Beware, if you?re talking unstable vs. testing here, testing is the oneYes. That's what I meant to write, sorry.
with the worst security support (= none at all) of all Debian branches.
Security fixes are provided in unstable as part of packaging new100% agree :-)
upstream releases, and cherry-picked to stable through the dedicated
security channel. On testing, security fixes do not go through a special channel: they trickle down from unstable following the usual rules, so
with at least a 3 to 5 days delay that can grow to weeks or even months if you?re unlucky.
On Sat, Oct 18, 2025 at 04:23:07AM +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:A mistake indeed -- see my other post :)
since both don't have a security policy, security issues get (arguably) fixed faster on testing.
I think this is either some unusual phrasing or a mistake.
Le Sat, Oct 18, 2025 at 04:23:07AM +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de a ‚crit :I am using testing with debsecan which for me combines the best of both worlds.
(?) Plus,
since both don't have a security policy, security issues get (arguably) fixed faster on testing.
Beware, if you?re talking unstable vs. testing here, testing is the one
with the worst security support (= none at all) of all Debian branches.
Security fixes are provided in unstable as part of packaging new
upstream releases, and cherry-picked to stable through the dedicated
security channel. On testing, security fixes do not go through a special channel: they trickle down from unstable following the usual rules, so
with at least a 3 to 5 days delay that can grow to weeks or even months if you?re unlucky.
| Sysop: | Jacob Catayoc |
|---|---|
| Location: | Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines |
| Users: | 5 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 25:23:55 |
| Calls: | 117 |
| Calls today: | 117 |
| Files: | 368 |
| D/L today: |
561 files (257M bytes) |
| Messages: | 70,937 |
| Posted today: | 26 |