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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #219426 > unrolled thread

Understanding the two-year release cycle as a desktop user (and a Debian newcomer)

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

Contents

  Understanding the two-year release cycle as a desktop user (and a Debian newcomer) Sam <debian@samueldgv.com> - 2020-02-25 17:20 +0100
    Re: Understanding the two-year release cycle as a desktop user (and  a Debian newcomer) Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2020-02-25 17:30 +0100
    Re: Understanding the two-year release cycle as a desktop user (and  a Debian newcomer) Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2020-02-25 18:10 +0100
    Re: Understanding the two-year release cycle as a desktop user (and  a Debian newcomer) songbird <songbird@anthive.com> - 2020-02-25 19:40 +0100
    Re: Understanding the two-year release cycle as a desktop user (and a  Debian newcomer) Peter Ehlert <peter@sdi-baja.com> - 2020-02-25 20:10 +0100
      Re: Understanding the two-year release cycle as a desktop user (and  a Debian newcomer) songbird <songbird@anthive.com> - 2020-02-25 20:50 +0100
    Re: Understanding the two-year release cycle as a desktop user (and a  Debian newcomer) "Miguel A. Vallejo" <ea4eoz@gmail.com> - 2020-02-29 15:10 +0100
      Re: Understanding the two-year release cycle as a desktop user (and  a Debian newcomer) songbird <songbird@anthive.com> - 2020-02-29 16:40 +0100

#219426 — Understanding the two-year release cycle as a desktop user (and a Debian newcomer)

Hello,

I would like to hear opinions about the release cycle of the Stable Debian 
releases for a Desktop user. 

I love the Debian ideals and perks (its social contract, independence from big 
companies...) and understand to a certain extent the fundamentals on why 
keeping "old-ish" versions of packages with backports and the Shiny new stuff 
syndrome, but I fail to see how Debian can make a useful desktop distribution 
with the current release cycle.

For example: My main PC is an already two years old ryzen-based system and a 
Vega graphics card from 2017, and the kernel used in Stable has regressions 
which cause complete, unrecoverable system hangups on Vega cards which were 
not alleviated until kernel 5.3 onwards (and they still keep happening, though 
rarely!). This means that to ensure stability on a Debian installation I would 
need a backported kernel, or use Debian Testing or Sid, which IMO collides 
with the point of a Stable release.

I also see everyday many announcements about performance (GNOME) and usability 
(KDE Plasma) improvements which are not exactly new features. This is 
obviously happening on more recent releases, which Debian may not see (unless 
these changes are also backported, which I would find extremely cumbersome?) 
until approximately two years have passed since that.

All this makes me think that while Debian is a fantastic distribution, its 
Desktop, common user-facing side of things would greatly benefit from 
something like a separate yearly Stable release.

Thanks,
Sam

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#219427 — Re: Understanding the two-year release cycle as a desktop user (and a Debian newcomer)

On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 04:55:46PM +0100, Sam wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I would like to hear opinions about the release cycle of the Stable Debian 
> releases for a Desktop user. 
> 
> I love the Debian ideals and perks (its social contract, independence from big 
> companies...) and understand to a certain extent the fundamentals on why 
> keeping "old-ish" versions of packages with backports and the Shiny new stuff 
> syndrome, but I fail to see how Debian can make a useful desktop distribution 
> with the current release cycle.
> 
Debian's stable release does make a useful desktop distribution.  I use
it on every single one of my laptops/desktops.  That said, your
definition of "useful" may differ from mine.

Though, on my current "main" laptop I had to run Debian testing at first
because of the hardware support I needed from the newer kernel.

> For example: My main PC is an already two years old ryzen-based system and a 
> Vega graphics card from 2017, and the kernel used in Stable has regressions 
> which cause complete, unrecoverable system hangups on Vega cards which were 
> not alleviated until kernel 5.3 onwards (and they still keep happening, though 
> rarely!). This means that to ensure stability on a Debian installation I would 
> need a backported kernel, or use Debian Testing or Sid, which IMO collides 
> with the point of a Stable release.
> 
> I also see everyday many announcements about performance (GNOME) and usability 
> (KDE Plasma) improvements which are not exactly new features. This is 
> obviously happening on more recent releases, which Debian may not see (unless 
> these changes are also backported, which I would find extremely cumbersome?) 
> until approximately two years have passed since that.
> 
> All this makes me think that while Debian is a fantastic distribution, its 
> Desktop, common user-facing side of things would greatly benefit from 
> something like a separate yearly Stable release.
> 
I am not sure what you are getting at.  Gnome and KDE are notoriously
complex and extraordinarily difficult to integrate.  That integration
happens in unstable and testing.

The fact remains that you have two basic choices.  If you must have the
"latest and greatest" features, hardware support, etc., then you are
better off with testing/unstable.  If you can do without those things or
if timely security support is more important to you than those things,
then you are better off with Debian stable.

Also, for administrators of large collections of systems (e.g.,
workstations across and enterprise, data centers, server farms, etc.)
too much change too often is a major pain.  Those wanting more change
more often can easily switch to testing and/or unstable.  But if the
main stable distribution changes too often, that makes it difficult for
those who need a slower rate of change.

By the way, there are also lots of Debian derivatives (like Linux Mint,
Ubuntu, and so on) which may be more what you are looking for in terms
of meeting your specific needs.  Have you considered any alternatives?

Regards,

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez

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

#219428 — Re: Understanding the two-year release cycle as a desktop user (and a Debian newcomer)

On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 16:55:46 +0100
Sam <debian@samueldgv.com> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> I would like to hear opinions about the release cycle of the Stable
> Debian releases for a Desktop user. 
> 
> I love the Debian ideals and perks (its social contract, independence
> from big companies...) and understand to a certain extent the
> fundamentals on why keeping "old-ish" versions of packages with
> backports and the Shiny new stuff syndrome, but I fail to see how
> Debian can make a useful desktop distribution with the current
> release cycle.
> 
> For example: My main PC is an already two years old ryzen-based
> system and a Vega graphics card from 2017, and the kernel used in
> Stable has regressions which cause complete, unrecoverable system
> hangups on Vega cards which were not alleviated until kernel 5.3
> onwards (and they still keep happening, though rarely!). This means
> that to ensure stability on a Debian installation I would need a
> backported kernel, or use Debian Testing or Sid, which IMO collides
> with the point of a Stable release.
> 
> I also see everyday many announcements about performance (GNOME) and
> usability (KDE Plasma) improvements which are not exactly new
> features. This is obviously happening on more recent releases, which
> Debian may not see (unless these changes are also backported, which I
> would find extremely cumbersome?) until approximately two years have
> passed since that.
> 
> All this makes me think that while Debian is a fantastic
> distribution, its Desktop, common user-facing side of things would
> greatly benefit from something like a separate yearly Stable release.
> 

Software is always a trade-off between age and stability. If you want
new software, you must accept that it will have more bugs than older
software (providing it is widely used, and people report bugs). Some of
these bugs will have security implications.

After Debian Testing is frozen, it undergoes six months of concerted
efforts to fix the bugs. But six months out of every year would mean
the developers not doing all that much development. After release, only
security bugs (pretty much) get fixed. Until the freeze, Testing is
only about two weeks behind Unstable, so if you want the latest
software, you could choose either, after the freeze, Testing will
obviously fall further behind. Testing is generally a little less buggy
than Unstable.

I use both options: Stable for my server and netbook, Unstable for my
workstation. I don't use Gnome or KDE desktops anywhere (though I use a
few of their applications), I use Xfce on netbook and workstation,
command line on the server. I'm really not bothered about whizzy window
animations and other special effects. The applications run the same
whatever the desktop, in fact a little bit quicker if you don't waste
resources on visual gimmicks.

Finally, the unique selling point of Debian Stable is that you can
*always* do an in-place upgrade of one version to the next. That means
a lot to people running servers, though they also like that their
automation scripts don't break after routine upgrades. Windows hasn't
done major version upgrades since Win 2000, (except the trivial 8/8a/10
upgrades) and I don't think many other Linux distributions offer it.

It was originally hoped to release at one-year intervals, and the
current roughly two-year interval is not set in stone, it's just the way
things have worked out. It seems to be a good ratio of development time
to bug-fixing time. Given a large number of new (unpaid) developers,
the cycle could be faster.

-- 
Joe

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

#219433 — Re: Understanding the two-year release cycle as a desktop user (and a Debian newcomer)

Sam wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I would like to hear opinions about the release cycle of the Stable Debian 
> releases for a Desktop user. 
>
> I love the Debian ideals and perks (its social contract, independence from big 
> companies...) and understand to a certain extent the fundamentals on why 
> keeping "old-ish" versions of packages with backports and the Shiny new stuff 
> syndrome, but I fail to see how Debian can make a useful desktop distribution 
> with the current release cycle.
>
> For example: My main PC is an already two years old ryzen-based system and a 
> Vega graphics card from 2017, and the kernel used in Stable has regressions 
> which cause complete, unrecoverable system hangups on Vega cards which were 
> not alleviated until kernel 5.3 onwards (and they still keep happening, though 
> rarely!). This means that to ensure stability on a Debian installation I would 
> need a backported kernel, or use Debian Testing or Sid, which IMO collides 
> with the point of a Stable release.
>
> I also see everyday many announcements about performance (GNOME) and usability 
> (KDE Plasma) improvements which are not exactly new features. This is 
> obviously happening on more recent releases, which Debian may not see (unless 
> these changes are also backported, which I would find extremely cumbersome?) 
> until approximately two years have passed since that.
>
> All this makes me think that while Debian is a fantastic distribution, its 
> Desktop, common user-facing side of things would greatly benefit from 
> something like a separate yearly Stable release.

  for those who are willing to put some time into understanding 
how debian works, running debian testing and/or bits of 
unstable can be an acceptable risk.  i do not recommend this to 
just anyone though as once in a while you may have something 
break.

  this is why i also have a separate stable partition for those
rare times when i need it.

  the main issue with running from testing is that during the
freeze running up to the stable release the packages allowed
into testing may pause enough that you aren't being kept as
current as you'd otherwise like.  so during that time i might
pull some things in from unstable as needed.  i don't do this
on many things and i'm trying to be careful about how many
and what so i know what is going on.  mainly i like to keep up
with the most recent firefox releases.

  running etckeeper and git on a system can find out all sorts
of interesting things.  :)

  my other philosophical remarks would be an aside so i will
leave them off.


  songbird

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

#219436 — Re: Understanding the two-year release cycle as a desktop user (and a Debian newcomer)

I think Debian Testing would fit you very well
It is like a rock, honestly.
==========
I demand stability.
My machines Must work 24/7 without intervention.
for this reason I do have Debian Stable installed and operational on all 
machines (Mate desktop).

However, on the other hand I love Mate, and the continuing new 
features... and we don't get them in Stable.
And I am impatient and want the Latest And Greatest shiny new things in 
Mate!!!

My solution:
I keep a Debian Sid Mate (unstable) as default on on several machines, 
and I update daily +/-
In my experience, IF there is something buggy in Sid, it gets patched 
withing 12 hours, maybe as long as 24.
AND, I can just reboot to Stable and got to work without any issues.

My Wife is kinda a "Luddite that uses computers" so she has Debian Mate 
Stable... and I update it for her on occasion (days, weeks sometimes) 
and she is happy.
Happy Spouse = Happy Me.

Same for the office computers: the have Only Stable installed.

Mind that all of my hardware is several years old at a minimum, so 
having the bleeding edge gizmos is a non issue (and Mate is always in a 
Stable condition, that team is aces!)

On 2/25/20 7:55 AM, Sam wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to hear opinions about the release cycle of the Stable Debian
> releases for a Desktop user.
>
> I love the Debian ideals and perks (its social contract, independence from big
> companies...) and understand to a certain extent the fundamentals on why
> keeping "old-ish" versions of packages with backports and the Shiny new stuff
> syndrome, but I fail to see how Debian can make a useful desktop distribution
> with the current release cycle.
>
> For example: My main PC is an already two years old ryzen-based system and a
> Vega graphics card from 2017, and the kernel used in Stable has regressions
> which cause complete, unrecoverable system hangups on Vega cards which were
> not alleviated until kernel 5.3 onwards (and they still keep happening, though
> rarely!). This means that to ensure stability on a Debian installation I would
> need a backported kernel, or use Debian Testing or Sid, which IMO collides
> with the point of a Stable release.
>
> I also see everyday many announcements about performance (GNOME) and usability
> (KDE Plasma) improvements which are not exactly new features. This is
> obviously happening on more recent releases, which Debian may not see (unless
> these changes are also backported, which I would find extremely cumbersome?)
> until approximately two years have passed since that.
>
> All this makes me think that while Debian is a fantastic distribution, its
> Desktop, common user-facing side of things would greatly benefit from
> something like a separate yearly Stable release.
>
> Thanks,
> Sam
>
>
>
>
>

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

#219438 — Re: Understanding the two-year release cycle as a desktop user (and a Debian newcomer)

Peter Ehlert wrote:
> I think Debian Testing would fit you very well
> It is like a rock, honestly.

  that hasn't been my experience, but i know what i'm doing
well enough to fix things or to ask for help here if i find
something i don't understand well enough.

  i got bit by some kind of lightdm transition or update
and then before when system[-x] came along i had a failure
during that which was not easy enough to solve as i did
not have any exposure to system[-x] to that point.

  as i am here now and all is working ok i'm happy.  debian
does rock.  :)  thanks to the people who volunteer and 
do the work and answer questions and fix bugs.  :)


  songbird

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

#219649 — Re: Understanding the two-year release cycle as a desktop user (and a Debian newcomer)

I have a friend who works as a system administrator that always says:

Debian Stable --> Debian Server
Debian Testing --> Debian Desktop Moderate
Debian Unstable --> Debian Desktop Fast

Being Moderate and Fast the speed at you will eat new bugs.

As time goes by, I'm more and more agree with him. Debian Stable
should be enough for everyone, but... in practice only works for
servers and very low demanding desktops / workstations.

if you use fast moving software (for example, ham radio applications),
or developing new software, or helps developing new software, your
only option is to run ahead to testing / unstable. Packages versions
in Stable are obsolete even on the very same launch day. The developer
puts a new version, you download the sources, try to compile them,
compilation failed, asks the developer why and the answer is always
the same: Your put_any_library_here version is obsolete, please
upgrade. So you are forced to move to testing / unstable.

Another case is if you suffer a serious bug with stable, usually
hardware support. Then, also your only option is to run ahead to
testing / unstable and cross your fingers. In my case, suffering the
big problems with Intel video cards the only option is to move to
unstable and pray for every new kernel to be the one that solves the
problem. I've read there will be no chace to get a working kernel with
Intel cards until next 5.7 so now I'm on stable, which seems to be
somewhat stable (only one chrash in the last 7 days).

I activelly follow the development of some programs in diverse areas
(ham radio, astronomy, emulators, etc), and new versions usually
appears in unstable months after release. The more prominent example
is the kernel itself. Current version is 5.5.7, but unstable still
have 5.4.19. When the statibily of your system depends on a feature or
bug solved in a new kernel version, this can be distressing.

Even with all this, I still prefer to use Debian.

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

#219654 — Re: Understanding the two-year release cycle as a desktop user (and a Debian newcomer)

Miguel A. Vallejo wrote:
...
> I activelly follow the development of some programs in diverse areas
> (ham radio, astronomy, emulators, etc), and new versions usually
> appears in unstable months after release. The more prominent example
> is the kernel itself. Current version is 5.5.7, but unstable still
> have 5.4.19. When the statibily of your system depends on a feature or
> bug solved in a new kernel version, this can be distressing.
>
> Even with all this, I still prefer to use Debian.

  these days so much is happening in other repositories
that as much as possible for a project i want to follow
closely i'll just fork it on github and pull it to my
machine and use some form of an environment to localize
the changes (putting in more paths to binaries/libraries,
etc).

  i think a lot of what is packaged for debian is nice
and i appreciate the efforts of the people who do it but
with some code the developers have no idea of how to
do things properly and they are messing up so i have no
choice but to follow them (and regret it in one case 
because it's annoying to not have someone understand a
cycle of development which involves ideas like stable
vs. development and not introducing breaking changes too
frequently - like every minor release...*sigh*).


  songbird

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web