LinuxQuestions.org
Review your favorite Linux distribution.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Debian
User Name
Password
Debian This forum is for the discussion of Debian Linux.

Notices



Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 10-22-2005, 06:26 AM   #1
fdahl_009
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: NORWAY
Posts: 144

Rep: Reputation: 16
stable, unstable, testing - which do I choose?


Hi! Uses my computer to multimedia, also needs cedega to runs some games.. Security updates is not so important, consider linux a lot more secure than windows on the net anyway! Which of the three should i choose?
 
Old 10-22-2005, 10:18 AM   #2
DigitalPig
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: ShangHai China
Posts: 2

Rep: Reputation: 0
If you just wanna play linux, just install unstable. If you are a fan who likes watching updating list of many softwares, you can use testing. Otherwise, you can use stable.
 
Old 10-22-2005, 11:03 AM   #3
mrcheeks
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: far enough
Distribution: OS X 10.6.7
Posts: 1,690

Rep: Reputation: 50
I recommend stable or testing.
If you can fix bugs by your own time to time or wait for them to be fixed use unstable because you will have the latest software but it will break time to time.
 
Old 10-24-2005, 02:58 PM   #4
JeanBrownHarrel
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2004
Location: Sebring, Florida, USA
Distribution: Ubuntu Linux 12.04 [64-bit version] THE BEST!!!
Posts: 50

Rep: Reputation: 16
Try testing with apt repositories from testing & unstable...

Just the other day I installed Debian "Etch"-amd64. I set up apt repositories for testing & unstable and even included stable & it uses testing & unstable but refuses to use stable. Works great so far and even have a 2.6.12-1 kernel installed. Plays DVDs pretty good as I have libdvdcss2 installed. Other things work good too. I tried Ubuntu Hoary-5.04-amd64 and it worked good but would not play encrypted DVDs. Ubuntu Breezy 5.10-amd64 installed fine but upon rebooting it would fail partway through the boot. Tried Debian sarge-amd64 but it would only play encrypted DVDs real, real slow & choppy & real jerky; even with DMA enabled & a high-powered graphics card. Tried FC4-both 32-bit & 64-bit- and it just turned my stomach. I like yum but not yumex and they took out apt/synaptic which I like quite a bit; much more than I like yum. This was a stupid move on Red Hat's part. So I went back to FC2-the 32 bit version-on my laptop as it still has apt/synaptic. I hate FC3-any version-as I consider it nothing but trash and FC4 is better but still not good enough and I don't like the new Gnome desktop on FC4; it stinks big time. I heard a lot of good things about Debian; Ubuntu, too. However, Debian works great if you can get the right version. For me, testing with testing & unstable updates makes a great system. One thing about FC4-x86_64: Adobe Acrobat Reader 7--32-bit version--works on the 64-bit version of FC4 but won't on Debian "Etch" but oh well. I don't use it that much anyway. Love Knoppix too but am typing this on Debian "Etch"-amd64 as I write this. I am just madly in love with Synaptic and won't accept a distro that refuses to continue using it and forces people to use yum & yumex. Fedora Core & Red Hat Linux used to be good distros but no longer. That's ok. I have Debian on my big computer and FC2-the 32-bit version--on my laptop and both work great. That reminds me--I had better get Windoze XP SP1 packed up and on its way to Florida to my daughter. Let her have the headache I paid $200 for. Good riddance Windoze & Micro$oft.

Long live Linux-whatever version!

Sincerely,

Jean Brown Harrell

Last edited by JeanBrownHarrel; 10-24-2005 at 03:01 PM.
 
Old 10-24-2005, 03:54 PM   #5
Bremsstrahlung
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2005
Location: Maine, USA
Distribution: Debian & Slackware
Posts: 77

Rep: Reputation: 15
"Testing" is the distro most recommended for general use. The "Stable" distro is really only for when you want the most secure system possible with almost no software bugs, but that comes at the cost of severely outdated software. "Unstable" is the exact opposite of that, and you'll find yourself getting around bugs a lot. "Testing" is the common ground, and I for one am very happy with it, especially since I'm not yet skilled enough to master any bugs that come up in unstable (though in the past I've been lucky and not had too many such bugs).
 
Old 10-25-2005, 11:46 AM   #6
NoStop
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2005
Location: Canada
Distribution: Debian Etch - Enlightenment E17
Posts: 116

Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally posted by Bremsstrahlung
"Testing" is the distro most recommended for general use. The "Stable" distro is really only for when you want the most secure system possible with almost no software bugs, but that comes at the cost of severely outdated software. "Unstable" is the exact opposite of that, and you'll find yourself getting around bugs a lot. "Testing" is the common ground, and I for one am very happy with it, especially since I'm not yet skilled enough to master any bugs that come up in unstable (though in the past I've been lucky and not had too many such bugs).


Why does there appear to be so many missing lib files in the repository when trying to install stuff in testing? Is there a way in synaptic to update what's actually out there on the mirrors?

Cheers.
 
Old 10-25-2005, 12:49 PM   #7
ChangWufei
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: England
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 12

Rep: Reputation: 0
I use unstable, I havent really ever come across any big bugs (cant think of any small ones right now either)
 
Old 10-26-2005, 12:19 AM   #8
Bremsstrahlung
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2005
Location: Maine, USA
Distribution: Debian & Slackware
Posts: 77

Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally posted by NoStop


Why does there appear to be so many missing lib files in the repository when trying to install stuff in testing? Is there a way in synaptic to update what's actually out there on the mirrors?

Cheers.
Eh? I haven't actually run into that problem much. What does your sources.list look like?
 
Old 10-26-2005, 11:22 AM   #9
Dtsazza
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: Oxford, UK
Distribution: Debian Etch (w/ dual-boot XP for gaming)
Posts: 282

Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally posted by ChangWufei
I use unstable, I havent really ever come across any big bugs (cant think of any small ones right now either)
In the few months I've been subscribed to the debian-kde mailing list, there's been one major issue with sid breaking a vast majority of KDE, including konqueror and other major components...

Seeing the messages fly back and forth about that one made me want to avoid it in general. I think we all tend to underestimate how important your garden-variety desktop is - I know if mine was out of action for a couple of days because of a bad commit, I'd be pretty annoyed. I can't say I've ever missed software that's in unstable but hasn't made it to testing yet - and so far as I can tell, the unstable -> testing transiation is much quicker than the testing -> stable (am I wrong on this?).
 
Old 10-26-2005, 11:43 AM   #10
dastrike
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2004
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Distribution: Debian 'sid'
Posts: 250

Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally posted by NoStop


Why does there appear to be so many missing lib files in the repository when trying to install stuff in testing? Is there a way in synaptic to update what's actually out there on the mirrors?

Cheers.
Depending on how your APT sources and APT preferences is set, and how you specify the installation command, that situation can occur
E.g. if you install a package and it exists in testing but the libraries it depends on exist in stable but the package depends on versions from stable, and you have set stable to a higher priority than testing, then you cannot just install it by e.g. apt-get install somepackagename, in that case you'll have to set the target to testing so that it takes the dependencies from testing also, e.g. with apt-get install somepackagename -t testing
Depending on exactly how you have configured APT to behave, these situations aren't uncommon. But to avoid this kind of issue, have apt sources for the version you want to run primarily, and have your APT preferences set to highest priority for that one as well.



Example: I run Debian testing ('etch') primarily but also have APT sources present for the others
Relevant portion from my /etc/apt/sources.list:
Code:
# Sarge (stable 3.1)
deb http://ftp.se.debian.org/debian sarge main contrib non-free

# Etch (testing)
deb http://ftp.se.debian.org/debian etch main contrib non-free

# Sid (unstable)
deb http://ftp.se.debian.org/debian sid main contrib non-free

# Experimental
deb http://ftp.se.debian.org/debian ../project/experimental main contrib non-free

# Security updates
deb http://security.debian.org/ sarge/updates main contrib non-free
deb http://security.debian.org/ etch/updates main contrib non-free
And my /etc/apt/preferences, with testing set to highest priority
Code:
Package: *
Pin: release a=stable
Pin-Priority: 500

Package: *
Pin: release a=testing
Pin-Priority: 700

Package: *
Pin: release a=unstable
Pin-Priority: 600

Package: *
Pin: release a=experimental
Pin-Priority: 1
 
Old 12-13-2005, 04:20 AM   #11
nx5000
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2005
Location: Out
Posts: 3,307

Rep: Reputation: 53
Very interesting thread..
I'm currently looking at
man apt_preferences

It gives a lot of information too.
 
Old 12-13-2005, 10:27 AM   #12
h2gofast
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2002
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 154

Rep: Reputation: 30
You will learn more with unstable because you have to.

This just happened a few days ago. http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...d.php?t=391930

unstable has been having more issues like this lately, which is par for the course, but you should know what you might be looking at. The going thing is that chances are someone else in the community is having the same issue and very well might have a solution already.
If you can handle stuff like that go for it, the issue was actually simple to fix, but it does happen. If not go testing.
 
Old 12-13-2005, 02:25 PM   #13
lestoil
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2004
Location: new york
Distribution: win2k,ubuntu,sw13,arch,centos5.3
Posts: 815

Rep: Reputation: 31
wc to choose sarge/testing/sid

I just installed sarge on P233 hand-me-down pc with 256Mb ram wc runs great. Tried etch but kde was missing kaffeine and k3b and it crashed frequently. Etch is running well on my newer pc with careful additions from sid.
U can also have up-to-date sarge system with careful addition of 'sarge' backports;for example kde3.4.3 and newer xorg. So get tried and true stable and new stuff.
What do u need the 'latest' for? If ur hw requires it or u just want new for novelty's sake etch and sid will work well as well.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
stable vs. testing vs. unstable pestie Debian 4 06-20-2005 05:54 PM
stable? testing? unstable? koyi Debian 17 12-16-2004 09:04 AM
stable vs unstable jazzben Linux - Newbie 5 08-16-2004 11:32 AM
form testing/unstable to stable pal05 Debian 2 09-01-2003 01:41 PM
stable --> unstable security4ever Linux - General 1 06-30-2003 05:23 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:11 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration