Most users with this philosophy seem to end up on Arch Linux; it's head and shoulders above the other "rolling release" distros IMHO. :)

If you are looking for something rolling but much more conservative (they still have Gnome 2!) check out Fuduntu.

I'm not getting the sense that Debian is the right distro for you (and that's fine).

OP, you could also try Debian Testing; it's midway between Stable (thoroughly tested --but old-- software) and Unstable (newer software that might not be completely tested).

You could even try Unstable (Sid) being careful with every upgrade you do, so as to not break your install. I've been using Sid for about two years now and haven't had serious issues; the only reinstall I've had to do has been to switch from 32 bit to 64 bit. I have the feeling that Debian Sid is actually more stable and conservative regarding new package versions than other more bleeding edge distros out there (without being outdated).

Regards and good luck whatever distro you choose.

I have used Arch linux but it needs frequent manual interventions. I do not think it is for those who want a "fit-&-forget" OS.

On the contrary, I find Debian-Testing to be ideal for me, but the apprehension was that once the current testing goes out of freeze, there may be problems. I think I will continue till that happens and decide when problems occur.


These were exactly my thoughts and I am already using Debian Testing for these reasons. I am finding it very useful, thanks to all Debian developers and experts like you who help the users on these forums.

As regards established software packages, such as LibreOffice, Opera, Firefox, the GIMP, and the like, I have seldom found that the latest bleeding edge release provides sufficient new functionality to cause me to lust after it as opposed to the release I'm using.

But that's just me. It's probably telling that my two favorite distros are Slackware and Debian and I've never liked Fedora enough to stick with it more than a couple of months.

Choice is good.

Yes...

There are many misconceptions about Debian... most of these come from not reading the documentation which is available.

http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/
http://wiki.debian.org/DebianStable

http://www.debian.org/releases/testing/
http://wiki.debian.org/DebianTesting

http://www.debian.org/releases/sid/
http://wiki.debian.org/DebianUnstable

I don't see the difference, in terms of effort, between using a search engine, reading that or registering on a forum, asking questions and reading through the results - in fact just searching and reading seems a lot easier to me...

If you want a desktop OS with the lastest and greatest plus some measure of stability I recommend OpenSUSE.

Why do you feel it is better than debian? Secondly, what about the rolling-release version of opensuse vs debian-testing or unstable?
http://en.opensuse.org/Portal:Tumbleweed
http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/news/7316/1
http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastruc...31001935NWSVRL

This is not a question of "better".

All distros are different. It is a suggestion that you try it.

I have an install of Mageia 3 (not released yet this is beta 2) and it is running kernel 3.8 and is a version ahead of Sid for rhythmbox. Is it better? Beats me. Could be for you.

I use Debian because it is "better" for me.

OpenSuse is very popular with a lot of people. They think it is better.

Many people use Ubuntu. They think IT is better.

The one that is better for you is one that you put on your box and use your way and like it. The only way to find this out is to install the things and use them.

Regarding:
Following is from the site: http://en.opensuse.org/Portal:Tumbleweed
I like the idea of rolling-release distro providing (relatively) stable versions of software. I thought Debian-Testing is in the same class, but some here do not agree. Moreover, the "freeze" period makes it not smooth true rolling-release pattern.

I don't know of any distribution that provides unstable pre-release beta buggy versions of software by design. Whether you are using Arch or Debian Stable, you will be using software that is "stable" according to its upstream developers. This is not what determines whether or not a distro as a whole is "stable."

"Relatively" stable is a relative concept. My idea of relatively stable, your idea and someone else's will cover a range with vastly different ideas. Software is stable or unstable. The question is; how much instability are you willing to tolerate? A system that is sort of a rolling release with somewhat recent packages that are relatively stable is too ambiguous for useful suggestions. Since you are the only person who knows where your preferences are in the spectrum of relative and somewhat, the only realistic thing for you to do is download ISOs for every distro that claims to have the latest packages and try them out. (Which is the logical thing to do when distro-hunting.)

If you like shiny new things with relatively few bugs, perhaps try one of the 'buntus. (You might consider the bugs few in number.) You probably should avoid distros like Debian and Slackware.

Exactly. That is probably why Debian has 5 sub-distributions: experimental, unstable, testing, stable and oldstable. One can choose whichever one is comfortable with. There seem to be only 2 problems:
(1) The name 'unstable' is negative. Arch or Gentoo do not call their distribution to be unstable. A positive name like 'fresh' may be more appropriate!
(2) The freeze part of Debian-testing. The distribution cannot be called truly rolling-release because of this.

Neither Debian developers nor users claim it is rolling. They claim it is exactly what it is - testing. It is not intended to be rolling. It is a work in progress, until it is ready to be the next Stable release. It is only some people who do not use Debian that call it rolling.

Not quite true. Experimental is not a release. Only a collection of packages. (I hope I have worded that adequately.) Sid is also not a true release. It cannot be downloaded as an ISO and installed. One "upgrades" Stable or Testing to Unstable. Old Stable is simply the previous release and is kept going, because each release is supported with security updates, until the current release is replaced by the next. It is like the warranty on a car continuing after the next year's model is released.

Agreed. But it is honest. The nice-sounding names some distros give their testing releases may be an attempt to hide the truth. But then, most distros do not call their most stable releases Stable either. So Stable and Unstable is logical. Hopefully, the name scares away the unworthy.:D

In terms of Debian releases, "stable" means 'does not change' and "unstable" means 'changes all the time'.
This has nothing to do with the 'crashiness' or otherwise of each respective branch.
The Debian development system is geared to producing a well tested 'stable' release every 2 years-ish.
The existence of both 'testing' and 'unstable' is purely to facilitate the next stable release, and the fact that they are both quite usable (given due care and attention) is mostly incidental to the main goal.

I feel that there is a growing demand for rolling-release versions. There are some users who have got tired of distro-hopping and want to fit their machines with one operating system, which should work quietly, including updating itself and the installed software with new versions. Of course, the new versions should be reasonably stable. This way users can focus on their main professional tasks which is often very different from computing.