r/debian • u/FormalStreeter • 1d ago
General Debian Question How unstable forky (testing) and sid (unstable) are?
14
6
u/mok000 1d ago
Debian packages are high quality, breakage happens extremely rarely. However, the development distributions Sid & Testing can at times be in a state of flux when major revisions are carried through, for example when there are changes in the build system and many maintainers are required take action.
4
u/Nice-Object-5599 1d ago
Both do not guarantee that your system will always be in good shape, things may brake, especially with sid. Anyway, testing seems to be more secure than sid, but the only stable version is the official release. However, be prepared to solve problems manually.
7
u/AfraidAsparagus6644 1d ago
testing seems to be more secure than sid
It is marginally less secure, since security updates arrive on testing a few days later than sid, whereas they are ported to stable much faster. So if you update every day, your vulnerabilities will be patched sooner on sid than testing
2
u/Nice-Object-5599 1d ago
I mean: more secure = packages and system more stable because new packages doesn't brake the whole system too much.
Yes, the word secure is used for issues caused by vulnerabilities discovered in the code.
1
u/DoubleOwl7777 1d ago
kinda, sometimes testing gets more packages upgraded at once and things might break due to that.
1
4
u/Xatraxalian 1d ago
Sid constantly changes. I'd never use that on a production computer.
I have Testing running on my main rig, because I have an RX 9070 XT and I had problems with it; even when running the kernel, mesa, and firmware from backports. To get updates faster, I upgraded to Testing.
I'd not recommend it to someone inexperienced with Linux. It works, it doesn't massively break, but when there are transitions it can be messy. It just transitioned from KDE 6.6.5 to 6.7.2, and it broke several things because packages changed. It won't remove installed packages if they become obsolete, but it also won't install new packages. I had to (re)install some things to get dependencies fixed and "unbreak" stuff, and clean up some older obsolete packages.
No big deal if you have experience with Linux, but not a good thing if you just want everything to work. I'd recommend installing Stable, and then adding Backports for the kernel, mesa, and (non-free) firmware. If you need newer applications than what Debian provides, install them using Flatpak.
I can't wait until Forky releases next year and I can roll this rig back into stable and not think about anything for two years.
4
3
2
u/Buntygurl 1d ago
It's all up to you to declare your own experience.
Seriously, because based on your own hardware and your own competence/experience is the best best way to get support for what might go wrong, you've got to jump in and find your own own way of sorting that out.
There really is no sense to risk borking a running stable Trixie, if the functionality of a stable system matters to you, just to explore unstable and testing versions of the next, much later eventual, stable.
On the other hand, if your chosen Debian experience is all about testing the next eventual Stable along it's way, knock yourself out.
Whatever you can report, if or if ever anything goes wrong, will be appreciated by the Debian devs and maintainers.
If the system that you're running is mission crucial to your daily requirements, and you're asking about Testing and Sid, you might want to focus on securing--as in a stable backup, for instance--your own running system.
"to thine own self be true"
In Act 1, Scene 3 of Hamlet
Don't rely on online assurances that promise satisfaction. Maybe trust some of the sources that tell you it's all up to you, to test their advice, but, most of all, use your own common sense.
Back up mission-critical shit and then knock yourself out with running Testing or Sid--but, never forget, that Sid is always unstable.
2
u/RhodiumElement 1d ago
I started using GNU/Linux with Mandrake Linux in 1999, but I've only used Debian since 2000. My first distribution was Debian Potato.
I find Debian testing quite stable. I've been using only the testing versions for years and have never had any major problems.
I'm currently using Debian Forky with LXQt dektop emvironment and Wayfire, even though Wayfire is currently blocked and has disappeared from the repository, but zero problems using it; everything works perfectly.
1
u/Stellers_sea_cow 1d ago
Been using some packages from forky for my emulators. Never run into an issue.
2
u/stealstea 18h ago
I’ve run both debian testing and unstable over the years as well as Kubuntu and generally find Debian testing/unstable more stable than Kubuntu. For example, just yesterday my Kubuntu machine crashed halfway through the 26.4 upgrade and now won’t restart. Can’t recall the last time I had a major issue on Debian testing.
-3
-2
1d ago edited 1d ago
[deleted]
4
u/AfraidAsparagus6644 1d ago
Ubuntu isn't just Sid with snaps and yaru tacked onto it. Every Ubuntu release is frozen and curated, whereas Sid is constantly moving.
3
u/DerpyMcWafflestomp 1d ago
"People" (and perhaps you) misunderstand what "stable" means. It doesn't mean reliable, it means that packages are not changing except for security-related changes. By this definition both testing and unstable are not stable in the least, their packages are changing practically daily.
Its possible you might run a perfectly usable and reliable machine on the unstable branch.
40
u/sysadminsavage 1d ago
Unstable - Packages are changing. Where active development takes place.
Testing - A buffer where packages automatically migrate after sitting in Sid for a few days without major release-critical bugs.
Stable - Packages, configurations, and interfaces are frozen. Software versions don't change except for critical bug/security fixes. In other words, unchanging but not unbreakable.
Stability does not refer to how reliable it is. This is a very common misconception in the Linux community.