SEARCH

Enter your search query in the box above ^, or use the forum search tool.

You are not logged in.

#1 2013-07-16 19:17:45

KomputerKid
Member
From: /dev/sda1
Registered: 2013-07-15
Posts: 15
Website

Going from "Stable" Branch to "Unstable" branch, good or bad idea?

Hello there! I have a quick question. I wanted to know if it is a good Idea to go from the "Stable" branch to the "Unstable" branch? I'll tell you what I need in my system, and you can evaluate and tell me whats better. Okay here I go:
I need my system to offer the following:
A good base (Not necessarily stable but a good foundation.)
Somewhat up-to-date packages
Something I can use for YouTube, checking my mail, using the dropbox cloud service,  playing Minecraft, word processing, browsing the forums I'm registered to, and hosting my Samba File Server, and Minecraft Server

What I don't want:
Crash Pop-ups at the rate of Ubuntu (I'm okay with crash popups just not at the rate of Ubuntu)

That's it. The only thing I don't want is to have a Crash Popup mess with crashes at the rate of Ubuntu. If that alone is found in sid I will stay on stable, maybe I'll go to testing for rolling release, that's the primary reason I was considering Sid was for rolling release.


Crunchbang & Minecraft = cool
Crunchbang & Linux =   big_smile
Crunchbang on Pi (PiBang) =  devil
Crunchbang on Laptop =  smile

Offline

Be excellent to each other!

#2 2013-07-16 19:19:29

machinebacon
#! unstable
From: China
Registered: 2009-07-02
Posts: 6,634
Website

Re: Going from "Stable" Branch to "Unstable" branch, good or bad idea?

You can safely change to unstable. There are quite a few of us who use Sid/unstable for years, and it is absolutely pain-free. Of course you also get fine support here. Have a try.

(Forget crashes. Doesn't happen. The term unstable relates to the frequency of updates in the repos, not to the state of your computer)

Edit: I don't recommend testing (now some will question my sanity), but I found it more problematic than unstable.

Something I can use for YouTube, checking my mail -> any browser will do, and you can use youtube-dl to suck videos from YT in the Command Line.

using the dropbox cloud service -> no problem

playing Minecraft -> I guess that's no problem

word processing -> Abiword, Softmaker Office, OpenOffice/LibreOffice, wordgrinder

browsing the forums I'm registered to -> any browser wink

and hosting my Samba File Server, and Minecraft Server -> not sure if this is a good idea on unstable, but I don't know of a reason not to do it.

Last edited by machinebacon (2013-07-16 19:23:12)

Offline

#3 2013-07-16 19:20:49

DebianJoe
#! Code Whisperer
From: The Bleeding Edge
Registered: 2013-03-13
Posts: 1,207
Website

Re: Going from "Stable" Branch to "Unstable" branch, good or bad idea?

I can only speak for myself, but Sid is more stable for my uses than Testing.  I don't see crashes that I don't cause.  Then again, my particular way of working may significantly differ from yours.  Mileage will vary.

As far as packages are concerned, certainly Sid provides newer packages.  It's up to the user to determine what fits them.

Edit: LOL, Bacon and Myself seem to agree...still, don't make all of your decisions based on that fact.  We're both certifiably insane.

Last edited by DebianJoe (2013-07-16 19:22:18)

Offline

#4 2013-07-16 19:26:04

machinebacon
#! unstable
From: China
Registered: 2009-07-02
Posts: 6,634
Website

Re: Going from "Stable" Branch to "Unstable" branch, good or bad idea?

^ That's true (edit). On the other hand, Sid teaches you quite a lot about what's going on in the repos, version changes, you get more aware of what updates of packages actually do (and probably break), so of course you need to invest a little bit more time into checking upgrade warnings before upgrading blindly (up to 4x a day there are updates pushed in sid)

Offline

#5 2013-07-16 19:31:38

DebianJoe
#! Code Whisperer
From: The Bleeding Edge
Registered: 2013-03-13
Posts: 1,207
Website

Re: Going from "Stable" Branch to "Unstable" branch, good or bad idea?

One other thing, even though you'll see it around in many discussions, is that it's easier to deal with FULL stable or FULL unstable than trying to strike some kind of a balance through apt-pinning.  In the end, that normally ends up being less stable than unstable, without the benefits.  If you're new to the subject, don't let the temptation to try to have the best of both world get to you...it doesn't work like that.  It's like trying to bolt a trailer hitch to your sportscar...you end up with a monstrosity that's not really good for either purpose.

Just my $0.02

Offline

#6 2013-07-16 19:33:18

pidsley
Window Mangler
Registered: 2012-05-23
Posts: 1,752

Re: Going from "Stable" Branch to "Unstable" branch, good or bad idea?

I also use sid, and I had to search for "crash popup." I had no idea what you were talking about.

The choice between stable and sid comes down to "what is more important to you: rock solid stability or newer packages?" I have never had a problem with sid that I could not solve with a little searching and tweaking; however, you will have more minor issues with sid than you will if you stay with stable. You will also see more and larger updates on sid than you do with stable, so it's more important to dist-upgrade more often, and to pay attention to what the upgrade is adding or removing.

I love sid, but I wouldn't run it on a server. I wouldn't run testing anywhere.

(edit) and as you might imagine from my sig, I agree with DJ about apt-pinning. Just take a look at all the questions on the forum from people who are having problems because they are trying to pin and install just a few packages from sid. As machinebacon likes to say "this is like trying to swim and not get wet" (actually, he uses a more colorful metaphor that would probably be censored here, but you get the idea). If you decide to use sid, just use sid and be done with it. You will have fewer problems in the long run.

Last edited by pidsley (2013-07-16 20:59:27)

Offline

#7 2013-07-18 20:10:07

KapitaenM
Member
From: Massachusetts
Registered: 2010-06-15
Posts: 40

Re: Going from "Stable" Branch to "Unstable" branch, good or bad idea?

I would say Unstable is what I inevitably shift to after a few weeks. Stable can seem stale after a bit, but I've learned to appreciate it.
I really prefer Testing nowadays because when Wheezy became Stable, a bunch of software got tossed into Unstable and certain dependencies just didn't work out, and I had to pin a ton of crap "backwards". I think it's good now, probably the GTK3.8 shift that caused the bad times.

Nonetheless I've been enjoying a Testing environment because there's time to recover from bigger shifts. But I have to agree with everyone else; for at least a year, 2011-2012, Unstable was fine and dandy and I got all the new features.

Certain projects, namely Iceweasel, Transmission, and LibreOffice, seem to work fine from Experimental despite running a Testing system.

Offline

#8 2013-07-18 21:52:26

th3pun15h3r
#! Die Hard
Registered: 2011-11-22
Posts: 519

Re: Going from "Stable" Branch to "Unstable" branch, good or bad idea?

From my experience and use, I'll be sticking with #! Default of stable.  I didn't see any newer software exclusive to said that I use that I couldn't find in stable or for stable (usually a deb package for it is online).  My uses include, virtual box, spotify, pithos (Pandora), lastfm, desura (game client), steam Linux and windows client (via wine/playonlinux), netflix with Netflix desktop, dead beef and mini tube.  Can't think if I am missing anything else.

Offline

#9 2013-07-23 10:22:00

nan0
New Member
From: Germany
Registered: 2013-07-23
Posts: 1

Re: Going from "Stable" Branch to "Unstable" branch, good or bad idea?

I'm curious, is there a reason why some people think that testing is more problematic than unstable? I thought it was actually the other way around. I considered switching to testing for my secondary system, to avoid being hit by any larger issues that may slip into unstable.

Last edited by nan0 (2013-07-23 10:23:57)

Offline

#10 2013-07-23 12:50:03

pvsage
Internal Affairs
From: North Carolina
Registered: 2009-10-18
Posts: 12,538

Re: Going from "Stable" Branch to "Unstable" branch, good or bad idea?

@nan0:  Welcome to Club#!!

I think part of the preference for Unstable over Testing is that, since updates filter into Unstable a little faster than Testing, fixes for bugs that slipped through the cracks are also going to hit Unstable a little faster.  If it breaks because of something the developers did, Unstable gets fixed before Testing.


I'm a moderator here.  How are we doing?  Feedback is encouraged.

Offline

#11 2013-07-23 14:18:51

annoyingbeggar
#! Junkie
From: Florida
Registered: 2013-05-30
Posts: 430

Re: Going from "Stable" Branch to "Unstable" branch, good or bad idea?

I've also had issues on testing where a package is pushed through but not its dependencies. This can cause a bit of a headache.


“I don't believe in charity. I believe in solidarity. Charity is so vertical. It goes from the top to the bottom. Solidarity is horizontal. It respects the other person. I have a lot to learn from other people.” - Eduardo Hughes Galeano

Offline

#12 2013-07-30 03:31:01

KomputerKid
Member
From: /dev/sda1
Registered: 2013-07-15
Posts: 15
Website

Re: Going from "Stable" Branch to "Unstable" branch, good or bad idea?

So all in all, I should do Unstable, Actually that's a lie, I AM on Unstable right now on all my computers. tongue I've got 3 computers running CB, And intend to buy a new laptop (Maybe a Chromebook.) for CB (Unless it's a Chromebook then I'll run Chrome OS, or PiBang) And that'll run CB (Or PiBang) Unstable. (I haven't been on in a while because I've been spending some time in the Seattle Area... On vacation, I got home recently. tongue )

Last edited by KomputerKid (2013-07-30 03:32:04)


Crunchbang & Minecraft = cool
Crunchbang & Linux =   big_smile
Crunchbang on Pi (PiBang) =  devil
Crunchbang on Laptop =  smile

Offline

#13 2013-07-31 23:16:02

ew
#! Die Hard
Registered: 2012-09-27
Posts: 1,975

Re: Going from "Stable" Branch to "Unstable" branch, good or bad idea?

Running full Stable or full Unstable is easier than testing or a mix of sources and apt-pinning, but easier and more stable also means more boring, so I guess it`s a question of whether or not you want to get yourself into trouble to learn from it, or if you want to play it safe:)


- apt-mark hold account

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB

Copyright © 2012 CrunchBang Linux.
Proudly powered by Debian. Hosted by Linode.
Debian is a registered trademark of Software in the Public Interest, Inc.

Debian Logo