Debian

So what would you use for a desktop that's in active use and needs semi-recent software? Is testing good enough or is this faggot right

just use ubuntu

>install OpenBSD
*click*

Attached: 1553713018888.jpg (600x639, 41K)

>Problem with LTS is that the software is seriously outdated,
What about using LTS with Flatpacks?

I don't know, could that be a viable and comfortable solution?

Well, searching for LLVM on flathub returns nothing. So I guess the amount of available flatpaks is nowhere near the amount of packages maintained by Debian.

>all these retards can't backport from testing manually
get off Jow Forums

Does that solve everything? Won't you run into problems if you import a program and it requires newer libc for example?

And how is it even different from just using testing

Stable is completely fine if you don't mind older packages and even that you can mitigate with apt pinning, backports, flatpacks, appimages, etc.

Why not try using Debian Sid?

Im using stable for my daily driver.

The only issue you'll run into is if you're using hardware that was released in the last few months eg RTX GPUs

>laptops
No. Battery life is shit compared to LTSC
>desktops
Yes. It's good enough for a daily usage

Debian Sid is useful for people that like to test programs report bugs and fix them. It's doable for an advanced user but even they will tell you shit will break sooner or later(and it will). Sid and testing are simply to "beta versions" before it goes to stable. That's how it is. That doesn't mean testing for instance isn't stable, it's more or less like arch. But if you wanna wake up everyday feeling no fear about your OS, you simply use stable(or buster now since it's on full froze so it's quite usable even now).

>can be held up by transitions
trannies at it again

if it depends on newer libs that you think would break the system then don't backport
you should only backport the things you need, not everything
this thread is about security not bleeding edge

appimages are better

Agree mostly with what you've said, but I haven't had anything break in I think around 2 years. There's things you can do to drastically decrease the chance of it blowing up. Paying attention to apt-listbugs and not literally running updates blindly goes a long way. Wouldn't recommend it if you just want thinks to werk.

I use debian stable its ok nothing spectacular

Sid will break, sure, but it's not as dramatic as some might think if you have a little bit of experience with GNU/Linux. In fact, I do learn a lot about GNU/Linux when I break it, and it's always my fault. However, if I happen to break and I need to do something important I use another computer until I fix my main one. Because of this, I will always recommend stable anyway.

no. use ubuntu. it's better

Stable freezes all but security updates. The main purpose of Stable is for production servers.

Testing is more up-to-date with both development and security updates, whenever they succeed through unstable. This is best for general users.

Unstable is close to bleeding-edge, though there is still some QA involved.

All of these types have security updates. I recommend testing or unstable for desktops, depending on your personality; I've been frustrated with the lack of up-to-date software in stable, since it's primarily for servers.

Attached: wK5eM.jpg (2214x1471, 633K)

retard sperg faggot

>Retarded debian on training-wheels with corporation up its ass
>Better
Nothing beats base distros. You want apt, use Debian. You want pacman, use Arch. It's that simple.

I’ve used linux for many years now and debian stable is what I run on desktops and laptops. If you need newer software then sid may work. Otherwise, you can use Fedora but it does contain binary blobs in the kernel. The freed-ora project nullifies this however and they keep up to date with fedora releases.

Good answer, thanks.

To me it sounds like people who want new software would be best off with Debian testing or Ubuntu non-lts. Which one is better is kinda unsure though - Ubuntu has concrete yearly releases, so you can expect them to be pretty well-tested. Debian testing on the other hand *might* not get security updates as quickly as LTS or even Ubuntu, if I understand correctly, and it doesn't have fixed releases so you'll have to constantly dist upgrade to the newest version if you wanna make sure you get all the security patches, and then the new releases might also break something new so you'll be waiting for fixes for that.

Well, to me Ubuntu seems like a corporate Debian with a better release schedule and more botnet.

>Ancient versions of packages even on """""unstable"""""
>GNU/Retarded insistence on muh free softwarez onlie :DDDDD, so your Intel WiFi doesn't work out of the box
>"Muh base distro iz best"
Yes neckbeard fucktard, it's best for servers where you won't be updating shit except for security patches, not a device that you use for development daily.

I used Debian stable for three months. It was extremely painful to get fonts with antialiasing across the entire OS. The default terminal sucked compared to ubuntu versions that are 6 years old at this point.

I ran a docker container for torrents that ended up losing 10-40GB of torrent data.

I vastly prefer ubuntu, even with unity. Lubuntu was pretty comfy for a low end PC, and ubuntu mate isn't bad either.

I don't see myself using Debian stable on the desktop ever again. Everything about using it was an utter pain in the ass, and ubuntu is plenty stable for a desktop, especially if you get LTS a few months or years after release.

desu I don't think Ubuntu LTS is much more recent package-wise than Debian stable is. both are pain if you use software that benefits from new releases, which is true for most desktop workflows.

I used it for many years: stable, testing.
But not I'm happy Kubuntu user.

Another retard that doesn't know about the net iso with non-free firmware

> >Ancient versions of packages even on """""unstable"""""
It means they aren't maintained. For example, freeRDP was recently deleted from Buster becuase it was the same build from 2014 and I guess there were some problems on Buster with it.

> I ran a docker container for torrents that ended up losing 10-40GB of torrent data.
> docker volume was not persistent
> blames Debian
Re
Tard

>Blames his OS for problems with Docker

Attached: 7DB77FB4-AD9B-47F7-8A2D-A25A818CE116.jpg (421x834, 41K)

I don't mind older packages and I can pull up the most recent ones in many ways. The good thing about Debian is the tons of options I have to make my computer whatever I want.
If you don't care about the newest software in the repos debian stable is a perfect OS. I never had a problem with debian in over 10 years of usage, except when I added a fucking repo from a debian based distro that was a fork of the testing brand. Didn't fuck my OS completely but created a frankendebian with fucked up configs and the name of the distro showing up instead of "Debian".

Do old packages work normally? Like mpv, youtube-dl, libs, gimp etc?

mac os x or wangblows

>no security updates in testing
this is not even a meme it is said in the name, testing doesn't have timely security upgrades; and debian saying this is serious shit since backporting to stable takes always some weeks compared to upstream or the day of CVE announcement. You are encouraged to use the even more broken debian sid.
No one should use anything else than Stable unless you are actually testing and reporting bugs to Debian, you are doing it for FREE.
If you need newer packages without security delays and breakages use Fedora

fedora.
You can install the release date iso, and upgrade only security with the --security dnf flag. Or upgrade-minimal which is securoty and bugs.
That's why I don't use arch, when I don't want to change in fedora I don't, but I upgrade security and I'm secure; in Arch when I don't want to change, I also don't have security upgrades. It's shit for any use case. Even Ubuntu is better than arch

No. Use Ubuntu or Ubuntu LTS if you need stability. It's literally the only linux distro that even approaches being a decent desktop operating system. Everything else is for servers or people who spend more time installing Linux distros and prettying their desktops for desktop picture threads than actually getting work done.

or compile the packages you need from source ?

>dude just-
then what is the point of using the distro retarded faggot? You could be using fedora or ubuntu without manually checking for CVEs and entering in dependency hell.
upgrades from apt will fuck up your installation from source, and writing .deb
is a pain in the ass.
Plus the point of debian is stability, god

>go onto Jow Forums
>advertise cancer
>call people who contribute "retarded faggots"
Why are you even here ?

If you don't understand the point of running a stable operative system and use a compiler to upgrade the software packages you want and get the best from both worlds. Then I put to you that : YOU are the retarded faggot

you literally can't do that, debian packages are patched instead of being pure upstream. Testing is broken, and using upstream writing .debs is even more broken, you have to match the versions to be compatible, it's months out of date with upstream.
>best of both worlds
HAHAHHA dude it's just broken with no stability, use gentoo if you are so smart. Debian is no place to hack a system yourself, it literally takes a team of people to do that, see Ubuntu patching testing with unstable. Suggesting doing it from source is plain retarded

>you cant compile software on Debian

I think we are done here

I'm not implying that you retard.
All I'm saying it's a shitty hack of work you are doing, security is in the ground, and stability too. It's neet tier garbage. Use Debian Stable, nobody should use testing if it's not for reporting bugs.
This is the state of the niggers using testing and posting in desktop threads to look smart

>"you literally can't do that"
>I NEVER SAID YOU CAN'T DO THAT

install gentoo

>haha dude it's funny because I'm semantically right xD I win
you lost everything, writing is all you can say. You basically gave up and agreed with me that testing is shit
this

What is the fucking point of a package manager if you have to manually compile from source? Not to mention it could potentially fuck up your system because softwares installed by running make install aren't tracked.
Just use gentoo, it is literally made for this.

I use stable at work - it's been great for the most part. A co-worker of mine tried testing and after a couple of weeks his X environment got fucked by an update and died. His WiFi died at one point too.

Definitely Ubuntu or Fedora, though you can generally get the latest debs/repos for most software for Debian. If you aren't a retard it isn't hard to keep your software at the latest version on Debian. I've found the only time Debian sucks is when they release a new version and there are still many packages they need to update, test, and add to repos. I've found backports often just don't work. I usually wait a few minor releases until adopting the next version.

^^ Also this.

Of course.

youtube-dl from the repo actually doesn't, not on my pc at least. I just download it from the website though, takes 5 seconds to make it work.

agreed

Run Testing on Desktops and Stable on servers and do not make a frankensystem. Packages only make it to Testing if they have no noticable issues after a few days of being in Unstable. Stable should pretty much always be used for servers because of the quick patching and excessively stable software.

*Quick security patching