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
Reply to: