• rumschlumpel@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Debian Testing kinda sucks, it’s like the worst of both worlds of Debian and Arch; updates for some packages can be held back for months because of some blocker, while stable at least gets fastracked to important fixes for security or system stability, and Sid just naturally gets them faster because it’s more up to date. Sid is probably better overall, but why use an unstable rolling release without all the convenience that Arch’s tools offer? AFAIK pacman is really nice for stuff like making your own packages. Plus it has a much larger user base than Debian Sid, which helps when you’re looking for a fix for recent issues.

    • jabjoe@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      I’ve found Testing works rather well as a compromise. It’s actually very stable, while most of the time, constantly updating. It’s only during freeze time it stops noticeably changing. At unfreeze, there is a load at once, but it’s yet to be a real problem for me in like 15y. SID is a bit too bleeding edge for my liking. The Arch and SID guys can be on the front line, that’s fine. I thank them for their service, but I don’t want it quite as interesting as that.

      • rumschlumpel@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        58 minutes ago

        Well, you do you. My Debian Testing install was my only bare metal install that ever broke because of an update (not to say that Arch etc. would have been any better, I just haven’t been using rolling release distros since then).