PDA

View Full Version : How unstable is Debian Sid?



Pogeymanz
May 1st, 2009, 03:38 AM
I want to slap Linux on a laptop that I will be using for the summer.
Long story short- I need something quicker to install than Arch, so I thought about Ubuntu of course. But I'm afraid Ubuntu might be a little too bloaty for this laptop. I've had very good experience putting Debian on old hardware, but I always used the stable/testing branches.

Will I be able to get work done with Debian Sid? Or should I just install Testing and manually install any newer packages I want (xfce4.6, mostly).

garythegoth
May 1st, 2009, 04:09 AM
I want to slap Linux on a laptop that I will be using for the summer.
Long story short- I need something quicker to install than Arch, so I thought about Ubuntu of course. But I'm afraid Ubuntu might be a little too bloaty for this laptop. I've had very good experience putting Debian on old hardware, but I always used the stable/testing branches.

Will I be able to get work done with Debian Sid? Or should I just install Testing and manually install any newer packages I want (xfce4.6, mostly).

Haha, I really wouldnt. Sid has a very nasty habiting of breaking with the weirdest things. Arch is a much, much better choice.

gymophett
May 1st, 2009, 04:10 AM
I want to slap Linux on a laptop that I will be using for the summer.
Long story short- I need something quicker to install than Arch, so I thought about Ubuntu of course. But I'm afraid Ubuntu might be a little too bloaty for this laptop. I've had very good experience putting Debian on old hardware, but I always used the stable/testing branches.

Will I be able to get work done with Debian Sid? Or should I just install Testing and manually install any newer packages I want (xfce4.6, mostly).

If you really are on an old laptop. Arch will be well worth your time.

garythegoth
May 1st, 2009, 04:12 AM
If you really are on an old laptop. Arch will be <u>well</u> worth your time.

Replace <> with [] for these forums for whatever reason.

gymophett
May 1st, 2009, 04:19 AM
What are the laptops specs?

kerry_s
May 1st, 2009, 04:26 AM
i'd say go with debian testing xfce4.
net installer:
http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/daily-builds/daily/arch-latest/i386/iso-cd/debian-testing-i386-businesscard.iso

for xfce4 select advanced options the select desktop, something like that.
there will be kde, xfce4 and lxde.

current version in testing is xfce4 4.4.2.1 which offer the same things as 4.6.

garythegoth
May 1st, 2009, 04:28 AM
Why would anyone want to install an unstable O/S if they want to use if it generally?

supersonicdarky
May 1st, 2009, 04:44 AM
Get sidux. The slogan is "debian unstable made stable". It's basically sid, but with some overriding fix repos (among other small scripts and fixes). Installed in under 4 min on my desktop. Have been running it since september - no problems. Also since it's sid, its rolling release. No whole system upgrades.

http://sidux.com/

sertse
May 1st, 2009, 05:43 AM
+1 sidux. Sidux is Debian Sid + Own repos (quick fixes for core components until the fixes are accept in upstream - including (but not just) the "sidux" kernel; sidux devs are active contributer to kernel dev) + community specialising in sid's nuances.

If you read the manual, news on the site and the forums you shouldn't have issues - the instability is somewhat overstated.
In the same way people assert "Arch is hard" :P, when it really isn't. Like it, the secret is being a user who reads. :)

The main advantage is that it's still debian, you're already familiar with alot of the basics, so slightly easier to get going.

Btw: Xfce 4.6 will in testing in the next couple of day / weeks (some parts made it already)

samjh
May 1st, 2009, 05:53 AM
Sid = very unstable. I've found it unusable if you want your computer for productive purposes.

+1 to Sidux.

sgosnell
May 1st, 2009, 06:15 AM
With Debian, stable/unstable has nothing to do with whether it will crash. Stable means it's finished, and there will never be any more changes or fixes. Unstable means development is still being done.

walkerk
May 1st, 2009, 08:29 AM
+1 for sidux. I run sidux on my HP laptop without issues. Great distro

snowpine
May 1st, 2009, 03:33 PM
With Debian, stable/unstable has nothing to do with whether it will crash. Stable means it's finished, and there will never be any more changes or fixes. Unstable means development is still being done.

A *HUGE* +1 to this. In Debian talk, stable/unstable has nothing to do with whether or not your system will crash. Debian "unstable" is less buggy than many other distros. I think sidux Xfce would be perfect for the OP. It is faster and more reliable than Xubuntu in my experience. The difference between sidux and Ubuntu (as I understand it) is as follows: Ubuntu takes a snapshot of Debian Sid every six months, then fixes bugs and adds new features to create a "stable" release twice a year. Sidux, on the other hand, adds a "stabilizing layer" on top of Debian Sid, but is constantly changing and evolving, so that upgrades are available when they're ready, not in six months.

I use both Ubuntu and sidux, so I'm not saying one is better than the other, just trying to explain the difference as I see it.

Pogeymanz
May 1st, 2009, 06:23 PM
Wow it sounds like Sidux is exactly what I'm looking for. Arch will always be my main squeeze, but I just want this laptop up and running without much effort and time.

I'm downloading Sidux-XFCE as I type. Thanks a bunch.