Judging by the way Ubuntu handles things, Debian Sid should be more stable right?

[TransitMan]

I am currently using LMDE/Sid. It is stable, and as someone else pointed out, I also use apt-listbugs before updating.
however, if you really want "bleeding edge" Debian, go Experimental. that's where all the programs/packages start from before moving up the food chain to Sid, Testing, Stable.

In the end though, it is to each there own.

[buzzingrobot]

Isn't it called "Unstable" because the mix of packages in it changes frequently, not because the software is inherently buggy and unstable? I'm looking into using Sid and from what I read if breakage happens it more than likely comes from an ill-advised and incompatible update. So, in a way, it's like a rolling release in that you need to stay on top of it, only it often rolls rather fast.

Debian does not release a "Sid" distribution, so it's really more of a designation of status in Debian's Experimental -> Unstable -> Testing -> Stable path.

[cortman]

Thanks for clearing that up. I'm having a hard time seeing why anyone would use Debian on the desktop now.

Because it IS more stable than Ubuntu on the whole. Debian doesn't have the complexity of *buntu added to it.

Isn't it called "Unstable" because the mix of packages in it changes frequently, not because the software is inherently buggy and unstable? I'm looking into using Sid and from what I read if breakage happens it more than likely comes from an ill-advised and incompatible update. So, in a way, it's like a rolling release in that you need to stay on top of it, only it often rolls rather fast.

Debian does not release a "Sid" distribution, so it's really more of a designation of status in Debian's Experimental -> Unstable -> Testing -> Stable path.

^this. I've often heard people say they've found Sid to be more stable than Testing even; the logic being that bugs in Sid get addressed immediately, whereas a bug that has made it to Testing receives a bit less attention. Regardless, I prefer Testing.

[BBQdave]

The way I understand it is, Ubuntu takes Debian Sid and updates some packages here and there, making it more up-to-date than Ubuntu. Wouldn't this make Ubuntu less stable than Sid?

I believe Ubuntu uses Debian Testing with some packages from Sid. Debian Testing is fairly stable, as applications and packages have to meet certain criteria for Testing stage.

Debian stable is an incredible stable - hardened system. And most popular applications are available through Debian backports - so you can be up to date.

On older hardware, Debian 6 with backports is a rock solid distro

To my understanding of Ubuntu releases: Ubuntu 12.04LTS Unity is a nice polished Debian 7 Testing.

[cortman]

I believe Ubuntu uses Debian Testing with some packages from Sid. Debian Testing is fairly stable, as applications and packages have to meet certain criteria for Testing stage.

Debian stable is an incredible stable - hardened system. And most popular applications are available through Debian backports - so you can be up to date.

On older hardware, Debian 6 with backports is a rock solid distro

To my understanding of Ubuntu releases: Ubuntu 12.04LTS Unity is a nice polished Debian 7 Testing.

Ubuntu LTS verions are based on Testing. The up-to-date versions are based more on Sid.

[Paluttoh]

Because it IS more stable than Ubuntu on the whole. Debian doesn't have the complexity of *buntu added to it.

I've often heard people say they've found Sid to be more stable than Testing even; the logic being that bugs in Sid get addressed immediately, whereas a bug that has made it to Testing receives a bit less attention. Regardless, I prefer Testing.

I used to use Sid with Gnome Shell. I never had any problems with it and it ran crazy fast. I'll have to give it another go, I guess. I switched to Ubuntu because everyone made it sound like it was Sid, but all fixed up and pretty.

I myself found Sid to be much stabler than Testing. I would always have problems with software that used OpenGL back when I tried it.

[UltimateCat]

Oops. I meant that post to be directed towards Sid and Testing. I used Stable and Sid for a while and liked them both. I can see why someone would use Stable, but Sid seems almost​ pointless.

Using Sid is a test bed for Linux Developers and other types of Linux Engineers.

I know a man in Debian Testing and from what I have learned from him is it's intresting to say the least-
Extreamly challenging is more like it:-

[lykwydchykyn]

There's always some distro out there which attempts to "tame sid" and make it relatively stable with patches or by overriding really unstable stuff; I remember running Kanotix for a while years back. That was a trip.

Then there was sidux, now aptosid. It was too much of a "what's my computer going to do today?" adventure for me.


I would add, the meaning of "stable" and "unstable" seems to be different between developers and users.

Users:
-stable = "isn't full of bugs, runs predictably"
- unstable = "buggy, crashy, doesn't work right"

Developers:
- stable = "This code is done and I'm not making any but the most necessary changes to it"
- unstable = "This code is being actively developed and will have many large, sporadic changes"

Obviously the definitions are somewhat related, but not the same. I mean, from a developer standpoint, if I said "Rolling release distros are unstable", then that's a simple fact by definition. But users of some rolling release distro take offense, like I'm calling their favorite distro shoddy. If I say "Ubuntu releases are stable" -- that's true from the developer definition. But someone who experienced a bug in Ubuntu takes exception and starts ranting about how buggy it is.

[TeamRocket1233c]

Actually, Ubuntu standard releases are pulled from Sid while LTS releases are pulled from Testing.

[Elfy]

closed - op hasn't been back, no need to drag this back