I have installed Debian stable on a laptop that I will use for university and general daily use...

I have installed Debian stable on a laptop that I will use for university and general daily use. Would I benefit from installing testing rather than stable?

Attached: simple_maki_debian_wallpaper_by_tuxy404_dcspa12-pre.png (1192x670, 99K)

Yes.
You would have packages that wheren't coded on stone tablets.

It depends, but in general, I really don't see that much of an issue. Just realize that your packages are going to be behind other distros even if you use Sid. It hasn't been an issue for me lately, but I've had instances in the past where I was fucked because some lib would be a couple of versions behind.

Other than that, assuming that you're not doing bleeding edge hardcore development, I really don't see a problem.

Use stable, not testing or unstable. I'm a fellow uni student and your primary focus should be on your work more than anything. The entire point of testing and unstable IS TO BREAK in order to find fixes for the next stable release. They don't break often but when they do, it will fuck up your work schedule.

This post will get a lot of hate, but really, stick with stable. A lot of people on Jow Forums want to use testing or unstable because it's cooler, they are not bug testing. If you want an OS which will work tomorrow exactly as it does today, still with the stable release. You don't want to be in the middle of an important assignment only for one of your major packages to break as a result of an update and spend time fixing it.

>half a year old packages
>coded on stone tablets
Is this what the average zoomer thinks? Current Debian Stable has newer packages than Ubuntu LTS.

Dude,it was a clear joke...

What's the deal with this Maki and technology?
First I see her on a zen of python wallpaper, then this

Good luck getting any version of Debian to work as a daily driver.

kek

Weird comment, I used Debian on my desktop and laptop for ages with no problem.

it's because you're special

No, it's because I had good guidance, I think.

i don't know, i just like cute 2D redheads

Stable for serious work, always.

just wait until your university forces windows 10 for everyone because debian contains GNU software which is now child rape software

Not this user but my uni has Debian installed on most of the computers
Some have Windows 10 installed on them but they're either using a dual boot or old computers at the other side of the campus that CSfags like us aren't supposed to use anyway

i'm OP and my uni has Ubuntu on PCs

That's Ubuntu. It breaks every 6 months.
It's an amazing clock

Why would a post that makes perfect sense get hated?
Debian is one of the biggest community driven distros. Lots of Linux users watch anime. Do the math

>Why would a post that makes perfect sense get hated?

Because this is Jow Forums.

Enjoy your ancient pleb packages retard

Just install ubuntu.

Just make a list of the software you need, if it’s in stable and it works stay on stable, otherwise weight your options

Her finger is probably almost as long as my dick

You would benefit by installing Fedora instead of Testing to be honest.
Not like Debian is bad.
Is Testing/Sid that is bad.

Not OP but just curious, what can you actually NOT do on stable? I mean the answer seems to be that stable doesnt have up to date packages or applications..but cant you just install them yourself on stable, if you want them?

>hurr inturnet hate masheeeeeeeen
Go back to wherever you came from.

You're literally proving user's point but okay

ecks dee

I had a 3 year old laptop that didn't have it's wlan drivers in stable, and I stubbornly stuck with stable and struggled with compiling them manually for a while until they ended up in stable.
If your hardware is newer, don't be afraid to use testing or newer.

Noob here.

What is the difference between Ubuntu and Debian, aside from the DE/GUI and the default repository links and Snapstore/Ubuntu store?

Not this year since stable just came out, but in general testing is solid and has newer stuff. Stable doesn't mean "we made extra sure there is no bugs" but "we got it working once and we'll try not to change it".

Debian has a cooler logo.

Ubuntu is for profit, Debian is volunteer. Debian is more conservative, Ubuntu builds in Debian to try to figure out profitable business models.

Ubuntu is bloatware

this, and the same reason I no longer use Debian

Wrong, dead wrong. The "we got it working once and we'll try not to change it" phase is from sid to testing. On stable, you test for months and months till you make sure there's no critical bugs. Of course, there will be normal and minor bugs, like in any OS. The difference from other distros is that they won't change for new ones, so you can work on roundabouts and how to make those bugs not a problem.

That's fair. "Got it working once" is a bit hyperbolic.

If you wanna go the Ubuntu route, I suggest you pick a flavor instead of the vanilla Ubuntu.

Thinking about your purpose, just stick with stable.

I switched to unstable a week ago and got a minor problem.
a text editor crashes occasionally therefore I lose text data.
To mitigate the problem, I'm using auto-saving function.
So it's nothing serious and I'm still happy with unstable but
this kind of problem can quite fuck you up, I guess.

quit poopin ya pants

Stable works just fine for me.

If your in college, just use Ubuntu. If you don't like GNOME, just install server Ubuntu then whatever DE/WM you like. Main stream Ubuntu will be more than stable enough for school, much better than testing, and won't be old as shit either, like stable.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with using Debian stable and then installing newer packages as you need them OP. Learn as you go.

a fuck off with your brain dead advice, mixing repos or version will make your stable release in stable, did it years ago and after several months everything gets more clumsy while still struggling to get the new versions with those needed features