Which debian version should I install?

[Dustin2128]

I'm planning on installing debian to a spare partition I've got leftover from an ubuntu install I destroyed with some bad advice from the forums. Which version in particular would be the best for me if I like to have: A. Up to date and beta software, and B: a usable system (not too unstable or missing firmware blobs)?

[snowpine]

Debian is not the right distro if you like to have "up to date and beta software." Debian is a very stable and conservative distro. I think Ubuntu, Fedora, or Arch would be a better choice for your specific needs.

[Dustin2128]

I know that it's fairly conservative, but I figure unstable should suit my purposes. I'm not a big fan of fedora, I can never manage to get arch installed correctly, and I want to try something other than ubuntu.

[snowpine]

Debian Unstable is unstable (duh) and does not include nonfree "firmware blobs."

But give it a try if you like...

[youbuntu]

... I destroyed with some bad advice from the forums

I suggest you seek advice from many places (websites, blogs, forums), and work out the "average answer" when doing potentially risky operations such as partitioning. I'm not sure I understand why you made that point. I apologise if I have misread this comment.

Maybe you'd be wise to practice on a spare drive which doesn't matter, in future, or steer clear of these risky adventures

[Dustin2128]

Debian Unstable is unstable (duh) and does not include nonfree "firmware blobs."

But give it a try if you like...

Stable compared to other distros though. Eh. maybe I'll give fedora another shot. As for the accident, it was a thing with experimental video drivers. I could probably fix it in 30 seconds, but I'm extremely lazy.

[youbuntu]

Stable compared to other distros though. Eh. maybe I'll give fedora another shot. As for the accident, it was a thing with experimental video drivers. I could probably fix it in 30 seconds, but I'm extremely lazy.

Therein lies your answer - don't be lazy, and learn how to fix things

Hehe

[snowpine]

Stable compared to other distros though. Eh. maybe I'll give fedora another shot. As for the accident, it was a thing with experimental video drivers. I could probably fix it in 30 seconds, but I'm extremely lazy.

Debian Unstable might be more stable than some distros I suppose, but it's definitely not more stable than Ubuntu, Fedora, Arch, etc.

Anyways if you are "lazy" then it is probably not a good choice. (No offense meant of course, you said it not me.) Debian Unstable updates 4x per day, and any one of those updates could break your system; you really need to stay on top of things. If you're looking for a really easy, low-maintenance distro, Ubuntu or Mint are your best choices, in my opinion.

[el_koraco]

as always, grandpa debian has the topic pretty well covered
http://www.debian.org/doc/FAQ/ch-choosing.en.html

[Dustin2128]

Debian Unstable might be more stable than some distros I suppose, but it's definitely not more stable than Ubuntu, Fedora, Arch, etc.

Anyways if you are "lazy" then it is probably not a good choice. (No offense meant of course, you said it not me.) Debian Unstable updates 4x per day, and any one of those updates could break your system; you really need to stay on top of things. If you're looking for a really easy, low-maintenance distro, Ubuntu or Mint are your best choices, in my opinion.

By extremely lazy, I mean I've got my slack partition set up the way I like and I see little point in booting into the ubuntu partition now that all my data's recovered. Main thing I want is a partition for staying up to date. Slack's rock solid, but I've been itching to try gnome shell and kde 4.6. As for my adversity to using ubuntu, let's just say I dislike the general direction it's taken, and that the performance shift from using other distros to ubuntu is quite noticeable, particularly in the 3D area.