[lug] Help installing debian at the install fest?

[Nate Duehr]

On Jul 12, 2007, at 9:19 PM, David L. Anselmi wrote:

> David Morris wrote:
> [...]
>> For most users, use the 'stable' release.  If you know what
>> you are doing with Linux and need more current versions of
>> applications use 'testing', but prepare for some
>> applications to be broken from time to time.  Avoid
>> 'unstable' unless you want lots of pain and frustration.
>
> For most users running mission critical apps, maybe.  For the  
> things people tend to use WinXP for, I'd say testing is better.
>
> "Lots of pain and frustration" for me has been 2 problems in the  
> past 8 months.  One was my smartcard reader stopped working.  But  
> it was unsupported and shouldn't have worked in the first place-- 
> nothing to do with unstable.  The other was that the kernel updated  
> ahead of my wireless drivers.  My fault for a) using a kernel that  
> was too new, and b) using wireless hardware that doesn't have open  
> drivers.  But I know what to watch for and it won't happen again.   
> And fixing it was a matter of booting the previous kernel and  
> removing the new one.
>
> So I think "lots" is an overstatement.
>
>> If old packages are likely to be a
>> problem for you than you do *not* want to be using Debian.
>> Ubuntu (or Kubuntu) is a good alternative.
>
> I disagree.  Packages that get old for 6 months and then need a  
> large update are more painful for me than those that update every  
> week and don't guarantee problem free updates.  I can understand  
> people who don't like frequent updates that cause unexpected  
> problems but I'm much happier never having to ask "how well will  
> the upgrade from etch to lenny work?"  People who don't like  
> unexpected problems should probably get someone else to manage  
> their computers for them ;-)

It all depends on how much you value your time, and what you're  
attempting to do.  Stable is great for servers, and old for desktop  
machines.

There was MAJOR breakage in unstable a few times now... a perl  
transition (4 to 5 I think it was?) was horribly broken until  
packages were tagged correctly, etc... once... and some of the gcc/ 
glibc transitions have been "less than elegant" in unstable over the  
years.  But yep, that's why it's called "unstable".

Testing has had a few packages with serious problems "leak" into it  
before if no critical bugs were filed against them.  "Testing" really  
isn't a *release* per-se, it's almost automated... packages that sit  
in unstable long enough without major bug reports, get passed on into  
testing.  There are certain transitions (like the glibc stuff a few  
years ago) that caused massive problems in testing when dependencies  
needed by things weren't available because they were still being  
repaired in unstable.

So ... to generalize the above... "testing" and "unstable" can both  
be really annoying when major design changes are happing in Debian.   
Otherwise, they're usually "okay" with unstable having quite a few  
more bugs, but hopefully minor ones, than "testing".

It really also depends on what packages you're loading.  If you're  
doing a gee-whiz whiz-bang desktop setup with all the latest and  
greatest bells and whistles, you probably *have* to run "unstable"  
for that, and expect breakage.  If you install only packages  
necessary to run certain server functionality, "stable" or "testing"  
are a good bet.

By the way, a side-note here... /etc/apt/sources.list with "stable",  
or "testing" in them (it wouldn't matter for "unstable") is a bad  
idea.  Use the real code-name for the distro you want, after you  
install.  The reason?   When a new "stable" is released, all the  
symlinks on the mirrors now point on level up from where you were.   
"unstable" becomes "testing" and a new "unstable is created.  This  
means that if you were running "testing", things are likely to break  
drastically around release dates.  Using the real code-name for what  
you want to be running puts you back in the driver's seat for when  
you want to upgrade.

--
Nate Duehr
nate at natetech.com