DebianThis forum is for the discussion of Debian Linux.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
I can not install debian testing I downloaded the iso on the debian.org website installs normally only that when you boot the system is a black screen and the cursor blinking below the first line
I can't use any command
my motherboard is an asus m2v athlon64 x2 4200+ nvidia geforce gt 730 video card
In that case try one of the Debian Testing children like VSIDO or SPARKY Linux. These are Debian Testing (SID) based distributions. Thy have maintainers and versions that may support your hardware a bit better and are slightly less prone to breakage.
Try amending the linux line using the E key at the grub menu to remove quiet, remove splash=silent, and append both plymouth.enable=0 and 3 before proceeding with the F10 key or Ctrl-X. This should produce many boot messages and end with a shell prompt. After login, /var/log/Xorg.0.log or ~/.local/share/xorg/Xorg.0.log, dmesg and the journal can be examined for clues to the black screen.
While technically true, I still would not consider the change from stable to testing an "Upgrade" - it's a change from a release version to a beta version. If some other problem seems to make this necessary, I guess that backports are almost always a better way.
Try amending the linux line using the E key at the grub menu to remove quiet, remove splash=silent, and append both plymouth.enable=0 and 3 before proceeding with the F10 key or Ctrl-X. This should produce many boot messages and end with a shell prompt. After login, /var/log/Xorg.0.log or ~/.local/share/xorg/Xorg.0.log, dmesg and the journal can be examined for clues to the black screen.
on black screen crashed
rtc_cmos 00:05 setting system clock to 2019-12-31T14: 58: 30
Unstable clock detected, switching default tracing clock to global
if you want to keep using the local clock, then add:
[*]While technically true, I still would not consider the change from stable to testing an "Upgrade" - it's a change from a release version to a beta version. If some other problem seems to make this necessary, I guess that backports are almost always a better way.[/list]
I'm glad someone said this. Upgrading from a stable version to a rolling development version which is both likely and designed to break is not an 'upgrade'.
upgrade something to make a piece of machinery, computer system, etc. more powerful and efficient
Though you will get more up to date software, you will likely see little efficiency difference with moving to testing - on the contrary, the system is a lot more likely to break unpredictably which would put you behind in any work and degrade efficiency.
If you're not testing for bugs and want more up to date software, backport.
Last edited by Lysander666; 01-02-2020 at 06:49 AM.
The people suggesting using Debian testing is risky, are likely people whom don't use Debian testing. My sources.list never has the distribution code name, only testing. Been running it for some 15 years, still works great on my 2005 Dell XPS desktop. Debian testing for me.... is stable, rarely have issues, been so long since I had an issue I can't remember if there actually was an issue, or what it was, at least on my laptops. My desktop has a boot manager installed in it's own partition and handles the MBR, as such, grub is not installed in the MBR, only the PBR, and there were a couple times a grub update installed grub in the MBR and screwed up the boot manager.
As buster transitioned to stable, there were no updates for testing for a period of time, but eventually they started coming and still no issues. But every now and then, I like to get rid of clutter, I backup my sources list and produce a list of all installed packages, make a backup image of the partition, wipe the partition (not necessary but what the heck), and reinstall same tasksel selections. I then make a list of installed packages and compare the two lists with kdiff3 to figure out which custom packages I had before that I want to install again. There are always many default packages that were installed via upgrades or whatever in the old that are not installed in the new, so yeah, got rid of some useless clutter. Maybe that's why Debian testing is rock solid for me. Just did this last week.
Anyway, this is the second post I've found tonight where a Debian dist-upgrade resulted in graphics issues. My guess... it's the useless clutter creating conflicts. It takes what? maybe an hour tops to backup personal data, sources.list, produce a list of installed packages. Maybe an hour tops to install from scratch using the netcd and a slow high speed internet connection, maybe an hour to customize the look and feel, install custom software and proprietary drivers.
So... three hours, I do it in less than two hours because I wipe the partition, but don't keep personal data in the Debian partition so no need to back up data. And what do you have? a clutter free, fast Debian testing.
The other thread with the graphics issues after upgrade, 21 hours after how much time troubleshooting before creating the thread looking for help and still looking for a solution.
If buster ran without issues on this computer, a fresh install of Bullseye will run the same or better.
The consensus on the matter is that, overwhelmingly, testing is more risky than stable. That is an indisputable fact. Whether it has not broken for you in your own experience is subjective.
The official documentaion on the matter says the following:
Quote:
Stable is rock solid. It does not break and has full security support. But it not might have support for the latest hardware.
Testing has more up-to-date software than Stable, and it breaks less often than Unstable. But when it breaks, it might take a long time for things to get rectified. Sometimes this could be days and it could be months at times. It also does not have permanent security support.
Testing should be protected from the worst of the instability that can result from new packages, but it is still not impervious to it. So that is the first criteria — if you are considering running Debian Testing, you must be willing to accept that there can be unexpected bugs, ranging from minor irritants to major problems.
Things break a lot after a new release, but then they settle down and there's not a lot of breakage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nodir
In my experience testing or sid never have been outstanding unstable, breaking often.
Also, and I consider this to be the most accurate post on the matter:
Quote:
To ask if testing or unstable are "stable enough" is to completely miss the point of what stable means for debian.
Testing and unstable, although in slightly different ways, are not at all stable for the simple reason that they change regularly, daily actually.
They are both stable as in "solid" if you ask me or all those who like me successfully run either one or a mixed version of all, but in the end most will not find them reliable enough because by design they are supposed to break in order to find fixes for the next stable.
So Brains, while your own use-cases have ceded little to no breakage, it's probably best not to give the impression that testing isn't risky. Everyone should be aware that it is, and the extent of that will vary along the range of personal experience.
Last edited by Lysander666; 01-03-2020 at 04:02 AM.
It's great that you came in to help OP "upgrade" their computer! ... if they ever come back that is.
Thanks
As we can all agree, the OP didn't say, "I'm running a critical computer where security is important".
The OP didn't say, "I need a rock solid OS"
The OP did say, "I want to run Debian testing", maybe not in those exact words, but that's how I interpret it.
The majority of the "help" offered here, is merely voicing personal opinions. Which in my opinion, is not what the OP is seeking.
In that case try one of the Debian Testing children like VSIDO or SPARKY Linux. These are Debian Testing (SID) based distributions. Thy have maintainers and versions that may support your hardware a bit better and are slightly less prone to breakage.
Sid isn't the same thing as testing; it's much more unstable and more cutting-edge.
Sid isn't the same thing as testing; it's much more unstable and more cutting-edge.
It is where the packages that will enter the testing branch come from. They are a little more bleeding edge for a week or two, the time it takes for them to migrate to the testing branch, once it is determined the do not cause major breakage...
It is where the packages that will enter the testing branch come from. They are a little more bleeding edge for a week or two, the time it takes for them to migrate to the testing branch, once it is determined the do not cause major breakage...
I'm aware. That doesn't mean that a testing system and a sid system, or a testing-based distro and a sid-based distro, are the same.
I'm aware. That doesn't mean that a testing system and a sid system, or a testing-based distro and a sid-based distro, are the same.
They are essentially the same with a small time delay, once all the dependancies are in the sid for the required amount of time they are moved to testing. There will always be differences in the packages installed but not by much it is the way the system works, this weeks sid is next weeks testing....
Thanks
As we can all agree, the OP didn't say, "I'm running a critical computer where security is important".
The OP didn't say, "I need a rock solid OS"
The OP did say, "I want to run Debian testing", maybe not in those exact words, but that's how I interpret it.
The majority of the "help" offered here, is merely voicing personal opinions. Which in my opinion, is not what the OP is seeking.
Great.
You got a slew of information from OP in posts #1 and #5.
I'm sure that's enough for you to tell them what's wrong & how to fix it.
To me it feels like recommending a DIY kit to someone who doesn't know how to hold a screwdriver, but I'm really glad that you don't see it like that and are willing to teach the ways of advanced distro maintenance to this user.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
debian 10.2 upgrade to debian testing
