Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #236438 > unrolled thread

Debian stable - updates

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  Debian stable - updates Christian <abelschreck3@freenet.de> - 2021-06-25 14:30 +0200
    Re: Debian stable - updates "D. R. Evans" <doc.evans@gmail.com> - 2021-06-25 14:40 +0200
      Re: Debian stable - updates Christian <abelschreck3@freenet.de> - 2021-06-25 15:10 +0200
        Re: Debian stable - updates "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> - 2021-06-25 23:20 +0200
      Re: Debian stable - updates didar <nosferatu@purlo.in> - 2021-06-25 15:30 +0200
        Re: Debian stable - updates Christian <abelschreck3@freenet.de> - 2021-06-25 16:00 +0200
      Re: Debian stable - updates steve <dlist@bluewin.ch> - 2021-06-25 16:00 +0200
        Re: Debian stable - updates Christian <abelschreck3@freenet.de> - 2021-06-25 18:00 +0200
          Re: Debian stable - updates Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2021-06-25 18:10 +0200
            Re: Debian stable - updates Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2021-06-25 18:20 +0200
              Re: Debian stable - updates Christian <abelschreck3@freenet.de> - 2021-06-25 18:30 +0200
            Re: Debian stable - updates Christian <abelschreck3@freenet.de> - 2021-06-25 18:20 +0200
          Re: Debian stable - updates Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2021-06-25 21:20 +0200
          Re: Debian stable - updates <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-06-25 21:20 +0200
          Re: Debian stable - updates Francesco Florian <francesco.florian@gmx.com> - 2021-06-25 21:20 +0200
            Re: Debian stable - updates Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-06-26 13:00 +0200
              Re: Debian stable - updates Francesco Florian <francesco.florian@gmx.com> - 2021-06-27 09:50 +0200
                Re: Debian stable - updates The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2021-06-27 13:00 +0200
            Re: Debian stable - updates Christian <abelschreck3@freenet.de> - 2021-06-26 14:40 +0200
        Re: Debian stable - updates Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-06-26 13:30 +0200
          Re: Debian stable - updates John Hasler <john@sugarbit.com> - 2021-06-26 15:40 +0200
            Re: Debian stable - updates Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-06-26 16:20 +0200
              Re: Debian stable - updates John Hasler <john@sugarbit.com> - 2021-06-26 16:50 +0200
            Re: Debian stable - updates Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2021-06-27 10:10 +0200
              Re: Debian stable - updates Weaver <weaver@riseup.net> - 2021-06-27 10:20 +0200
              Re: Debian stable - updates John Hasler <john@sugarbit.com> - 2021-06-27 15:10 +0200
                Re: Debian stable - updates Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2021-06-27 16:10 +0200
    Re: Debian stable - updates <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-06-25 15:10 +0200
      Re: Debian stable - updates Christian <abelschreck3@freenet.de> - 2021-06-25 15:20 +0200
        Re: Debian stable - updates "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> - 2021-06-25 23:20 +0200
      Re: Debian stable - updates Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-06-26 13:20 +0200
    Re: Debian stable - updates "T.J. Duchene" <t.j.duchene@gmail.com> - 2021-06-26 00:20 +0200

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#236488

Andrei writes:
> Unstable is challenging when you rely on that system for any kind of
> useful work, regardless if a movie night with friends or a big
> presentation at work, as each and every upgrade has the potential to
> break your system in new and interesting ways.

I've run Unstable on my desktop for decades.  It's been at least 15
years since an upgrade gave me any serious trouble.  However, I don't
use a desktop environment (unless you call FVWM a DE) and I only upgrade
when it is both safe and necessary.

I did recently have a problem with an Exim4 upgrade but I believe it was
primarily due to my customizations (I switched to Postfix as that's the
simplest way to do "wipe it all out and start over").
-- 
John Hasler 
john@sugarbit.com
Elmwood, WI USA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#236491

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sb, 26 iun 21, 08:12:07, John Hasler wrote:
> Andrei writes:
> > Unstable is challenging when you rely on that system for any kind of
> > useful work, regardless if a movie night with friends or a big
> > presentation at work, as each and every upgrade has the potential to
> > break your system in new and interesting ways.
> 
> I've run Unstable on my desktop for decades.  It's been at least 15
> years since an upgrade gave me any serious trouble.  However, I don't
> use a desktop environment (unless you call FVWM a DE) and I only upgrade
> when it is both safe and necessary.

How do you determine the "safe and necessary"?

(genuinely curious)

Package upgrades in unstable are also relevant for security, not just 
new features. And you could be the first one to encounter a particular 
bug, because of your particular setup, configuration, etc.

(if you do so please also report it)

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#236493

Andrei writes:
> How do you determine the "safe and necessary"?

I follow the security list and scan -dev for warning of such things as
major transitions.  I upgrade individual packages as needed (usually
Firefox): this occasionally leads to a general upgrade.  I pay attention
to the output of "apt -s" and make sure I understand the consequences of
any proposed removals or "...but will not be installed..." messages,
especially when libraries are involved.

But I think it is mostly because I don't run a DE, especially Gnome.


-- 
John Hasler 
john@sugarbit.com
Elmwood, WI USA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#236514

On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 08:12:07 -0500
John Hasler <john@sugarbit.com> wrote:

> Andrei writes:
> > Unstable is challenging when you rely on that system for any kind of
> > useful work, regardless if a movie night with friends or a big
> > presentation at work, as each and every upgrade has the potential to
> > break your system in new and interesting ways.  
> 
> I've run Unstable on my desktop for decades.  It's been at least 15
> years since an upgrade gave me any serious trouble.  However, I don't
> use a desktop environment (unless you call FVWM a DE) and I only
> upgrade when it is both safe and necessary.
> 
> I did recently have a problem with an Exim4 upgrade but I believe it
> was primarily due to my customizations (I switched to Postfix as
> that's the simplest way to do "wipe it all out and start over").

I've had a logjam for most of a year on a few items which can't be
upgraded because of an odd dependency issue involving guile-2.0 and 2.2.

Yesterday, I had a need for inkscape, which I rarely use and which could
only be installed by removing half a dozen programs I use much more
often. So I put it on my stable netbook instead. When I'm sufficiently
annoyed with the problem I'll do a reinstall but there are over 4000
packages and if I do an automatic reinstall it will probably just
recreate the same problem.

I think unstable is fine if you have an alternative computer,
(basically, owning a computer is fine if you have an alternative
computer) but by itself can occasionally mess things up.

-- 
Joe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#236515

On 27-06-2021 18:01, Joe wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 08:12:07 -0500
> John Hasler <john@sugarbit.com> wrote:
> 
>> Andrei writes:
>> > Unstable is challenging when you rely on that system for any kind of
>> > useful work, regardless if a movie night with friends or a big
>> > presentation at work, as each and every upgrade has the potential to
>> > break your system in new and interesting ways.
>>
>> I've run Unstable on my desktop for decades.  It's been at least 15
>> years since an upgrade gave me any serious trouble.  However, I don't
>> use a desktop environment (unless you call FVWM a DE) and I only
>> upgrade when it is both safe and necessary.
>>
>> I did recently have a problem with an Exim4 upgrade but I believe it
>> was primarily due to my customizations (I switched to Postfix as
>> that's the simplest way to do "wipe it all out and start over").
> 
> I've had a logjam for most of a year on a few items which can't be
> upgraded because of an odd dependency issue involving guile-2.0 and 2.2.
> 
> Yesterday, I had a need for inkscape, which I rarely use and which could
> only be installed by removing half a dozen programs I use much more
> often. So I put it on my stable netbook instead. When I'm sufficiently
> annoyed with the problem I'll do a reinstall but there are over 4000
> packages and if I do an automatic reinstall it will probably just
> recreate the same problem.
> 
> I think unstable is fine if you have an alternative computer,
> (basically, owning a computer is fine if you have an alternative
> computer) but by itself can occasionally mess things up.

I've used Unstable for many years as a reliable base for a small
business, and it rarely lets me down in any serious way. I switched to
it after experiencing slow bug fixes on Testing. Occasionally one
programme or another may get a little flighty, but it doesn't affect the
rest of the system, and is always fixed within 24 hours.
I wouldn't think of moving.
Cheers!

Harry.

-- 
`When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty' 
-- Thomas Jefferson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#236537

Joe writes:
> When I'm sufficiently
> annoyed with the problem I'll do a reinstall but there are over 4000
> packages...

While I don't upgrade daily it's bad to let it get that far behind.
-- 
John Hasler 
john@sugarbit.com
Elmwood, WI USA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#236538

On Sun, 27 Jun 2021 07:46:58 -0500
John Hasler <john@sugarbit.com> wrote:

> Joe writes:
> > When I'm sufficiently
> > annoyed with the problem I'll do a reinstall but there are over 4000
> > packages...  
> 
> While I don't upgrade daily it's bad to let it get that far behind.

I do upgrade pretty much daily. I meant that if I reinstall manually,
that's a lot of packages, and if I reinstall in some automatic way
(e.g. get-selections) then I may just recreate the same problems,
depending on installation order. I've had a number of bugs, some of
which I've reported, which seem to be 'just me'. My Firefox currently
crashes tabs on most e-commerce or other complex sites, and I can't see
anyone else with the same problem. I think I have an old and crufty
system which needs a complete clean out.

A manual reinstall, of course, it would be spread out over time,
installing packages as I need them. Probably no more than half are in
regular use. It's still a job I'm putting off.

-- 
Joe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#236440

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 02:19:34PM +0200, Christian wrote:
> Hi altogether,

[...]

> I quote:

> [...] There is a tradeoff, though. The software in Debian Stable is
> usually fairly outdated.
> In fact, it's usually outdated when the distribution first ships.
> Now, that's not much of a problem for servers, but it's awful for
> desktops. "

He is of course free to have this opinion :-)

Thing is: "stable" means that Debian stable doesn't (usually) change
the versions of installed software. Not without a strong reason. Only
bug fixes and security patches go in.

That means that you can usually update your operating system with closed
eyes, without fears that anything will stop working of a sudden.

Some people like that, even on their desktops ;-)

If you need the-latest-and-greatest of "this specific package" there
are usually ways around.

I, for example, have a very reduced set of packages I self-compile. I
know I've to deal with the fall-out, and I know how to. But I couldn't
possibly do that for the 2000+ packages installed in my system. I'm
infinitely thankful to the maintainers doing that job, and for them to
not make funny experiments.

Cheers
-- t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#236442

Hi Tomas,

thank you so much for your reply.

 > Thing is: "stable" means [...]  Only bug fixes and security patches 
go in.

Great! That is the most important aspect for me.
I really don't need the latest-and-greatest version of packages. All I 
do need is a stable and secure system.
So Debian stable turns out to be ideally suited for my purposes.

I've installed it in a VM for now (qemu, KVM) to see how it performs. I 
must say I'm very impressed. It runs smoothly even with just 1 GB RAM 
allocated to it.
I'm sure it'll make a fine system as a production system.

Thanks again and keep safe.

Many greetings.
Rosika

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#236464

On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 03:18:06PM +0200, Christian wrote:
> Hi Tomas,
> 
> thank you so much for your reply.
> 
> > Thing is: "stable" means [...]  Only bug fixes and security patches go in.
> 
> Great! That is the most important aspect for me.
> I really don't need the latest-and-greatest version of packages. All I do
> need is a stable and secure system.
> So Debian stable turns out to be ideally suited for my purposes.
> 
> I've installed it in a VM for now (qemu, KVM) to see how it performs. I must
> say I'm very impressed. It runs smoothly even with just 1 GB RAM allocated
> to it.
> I'm sure it'll make a fine system as a production system.
> 
> Thanks again and keep safe.
> 
> Many greetings.
> Rosika
> 

Do reference the codename for the release: that way, you don't get a nasty
surprise. If your system says "stable" today, that's Debian 10.10. When 
Debian 11 comes along - soon now - you get a huge update all at once, and
things are likely to be unpredictable if you are a new Debian user.

If you say buster, then when buster slides to become oldstable, your
system won't change underneath you suddenly.

All the very best, as ever,

Andy C

> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#236480

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Vi, 25 iun 21, 15:02:51, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 02:19:34PM +0200, Christian wrote:
> > Hi altogether,
> 
> [...]
> 
> > I quote:
> 
> > [...] There is a tradeoff, though. The software in Debian Stable is
> > usually fairly outdated.
> > In fact, it's usually outdated when the distribution first ships.
> > Now, that's not much of a problem for servers, but it's awful for
> > desktops. "
> 
> He is of course free to have this opinion :-)

Indeed, Debian stable must be "awful" for people suffering of 
"versionitis" ;)

(no offence intended, I ran unstable myself on my main system for many 
years)
 
> Some people like that, even on their desktops ;-)
> 
> If you need the-latest-and-greatest of "this specific package" there
> are usually ways around.
> 
> I, for example, have a very reduced set of packages I self-compile. I
> know I've to deal with the fall-out, and I know how to. But I couldn't
> possibly do that for the 2000+ packages installed in my system. I'm
> infinitely thankful to the maintainers doing that job, and for them to
> not make funny experiments.

For people new to Debian the backports repository is probably an easier 
start ;)

https://backports.debian.org/Instructions/

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#236466

On Friday, June 25, 2021 7:19:34 AM CDT Christian wrote:
> Hi altogether,
> 
> as I´m a newcomer to Debian and coming from Lubuntu I searched for
> information as far as the release model is concerned.
> 
> I learned that there are three different releases: stable, testing, and
> unstable.
> 
> I know I´m not supposed to post any links here but for the sake of
> reference I´ll still do it this time (sorry).
> I´m referring to the article  "Debian vs Ubuntu" on
> https://linuxconfig.org/debian-vs-ubuntu .
> 
> I quote:
> 
> "Debian's stable release is insanely stable. There are few distributions
> in the same league when it comes to rock solid reliability.
> 
> [...] There is a tradeoff, though. The software in Debian Stable is
> usually fairly outdated.
> In fact, it's usually outdated when the distribution first ships. Now,
> that's not much of a problem for servers, but it's awful for desktops. "
> 
> Despite reading through the entire article I couldn´t really understand
> why the author refers to Debian stable as being "awful" for desktops.
> 
> So I have a question in order to be clear about the matter.
> 
> Is Debian stable safe to use - I mean in the sense that it gets security
> updates for the installed packages?
> 
> I don´t really care about updates which would introduce new features of
> programmes. All I´m concerned about is getting security updates so that
> I can use Debian stable as my daily driver.
> 
> Thanks in advance for your help.
> 
> Many greetings
> Rosika

Hi, Rosika!  Welcome to the community.  I hope you will enjoy your time here.

Yes, Debian Stable is very stable.  It is not perfect, but then no OS is.  The 
best endorsement that I can give any Linux distribution is that it is stable 
and well maintained.  Debian is certainly that.

Debian Stable gets regular updates from the Debian Security Team, a group that 
does not nearly get the credit it deserves.  You can use Debian Stable with a 
reasonable assurance that you will receive patches as needed.


If you need newer versions of software for some reason or another, you can 
always use Debian Backports.  You can also use Snap, Flatpak, and AppImage 
archives. Please be aware that Debian does not patch third party packaging. So 
use them at your own risk.  If you have skills as a coder, you can create your 
own packages from any of the Debian source trees.


So the arguments against Debian being outdated are pretty much moot and 
misinformed, in my opinion.

Take care, and once again, welcome!
T.J.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web