I have a question for those of you who use Debian stable + the backports repository. Compared to testing, how up-to-date is stable + backports? Is the repository well-populated? I have received exactly zero updates from Ubuntu's backports.

I'm assuming that stable+backports is a little behind testing, but AFAIK testing "breaks" more often. Is the added stability of stable+ backports worth the longer wait for new software?

I have never seen Testing "break", I used it before going to Unstable, and even that never breaks, just some minor glitches. So I would recommend to go for Testing, if your system is not a production system that has to use a specifically version of a software.
Most people are misunderstanding the use of the terms stable and unstable in Debian. In Debian, stable means that software versions will never change (therefore the backports repo is necessary to get newer versions). Unstable means that software versions will change a lot. In no way does it mean that a system running Unstable (or Testing) will crash often, or "break".

You can see for yourself the exact packages in each at this link:

http://packages.debian.org

Or a general overview via this quick-reference chart:

http://distrowatch.com/debian

I agree with TobiSGD above: Stable is the best choice if you want to use older software that never changes (even with Backports enabled, don't expect the "latest and greatest"); Unstable if you want a "rolling release" with the latest applications ("latest" in Debian terms, which still lags well behind "bleeding edge" distros like Ubuntu or Fedora).

I have never understood why Testing is so popular among first-time Debian users. It's beta software by definition, intended for users who want to report bugs and help the Debian project prepare for the next release. I do not recommend it as an everyday distro for the average user.

You got some examples for that? I compared some of the brand-new packages announced at arch.org, and none of it has been at a version one would not find in the Debian repos.

Short example:
http://www.exaile.org/
http://packages.debian.org/search?su...eywords=exaile

Sure, here are some specific examples:

Linux kernel: 2.6.32 (Debian Unstable) vs. 2.6.35 (Ubuntu 10.10)
libgnome: 2.30 vs. 2.32
KDE: 4.4.5 vs. 4.5.1
Browser: 3.5.15 vs. 3.6.10

Source:
http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=debian
http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=ubuntu

At the moment, Unstable lags a bit, because of the freeze of Testing. But at least you can get some newer versions from the experimental repo:
Linux kernel: 2.6.36, Iceweasel 3.6.12

I understand. My original point was simply that a lot of people are scared off "Debian Unstable" because of the name, when in fact the packages in Unstable are the same as (or even a little older than) other major distros like Ubuntu, Fedora, etc.

"Unstable" in this case means "constantly changing" not "horribly buggy beta software" (as you yourself pointed out in post #2).

http://packages.ubuntu.com/maverick/...op-environment
http://packages.debian.org/search?su...op-environment

http://packages.ubuntu.com/maverick/kde/kde-full
http://packages.debian.org/search?su...words=kde-full

http://packages.ubuntu.com/maverick/kde-standard
http://packages.debian.org/search?su...s=kde-standard

I don't get it. I go to Ubuntu to check for the gnome-version, no info there. I go to the packages, it is called Maverick. I got to Wikipedia to check which version is Maverick. Wikipedia says it is 10.10.
I go back and check again. I can't see Ubuntu being ahead with versions.

Thanks for catching my error. I am not a Gnome user and assumed libgnome=gnome. I'll edit my previous post.

No problem for me.
The long story: For me version numbers of no big interest. I run Stable with backports and am happy. I run Sid and feel just the same. But i run across the "Debian is behind" quite often. In that case i sometimes check. I seldom find it to be correct.
Short ago someone posted at debian.forums about exaile being way behind. He was correct. But: at that time, short ago. Now, a few weeks later, the Debian-Sid version is fully up to date.
That is why i posted that example, i just checked it yesterday (i was looking for an application worth to do my compiling-training with).

And, just to be honest: i didn't think about gnome or kde at all. In that case it might well be, that another distro is the better choice (in case one cares about the newest version, and always). I was always happy with the kde-versions of Kubuntu (as live-CDs).

Debian is behind the other major distros... if you compare the final, stable releases.

All distros have development branches (Ubuntu Natty, Fedora Rawhide, Mandriva Cooker, etc.) for testing the latest packages. Debian is somewhat unique in that they have two development branches (Testing and Unstable... actually three if you count Experimental). Debian is a very conservative, slow-moving project, and they make a great distro. (I am a big fan. )

Only at the moment, if Squeeze is released Red Hat will come back to the throne.

There is also a stable release of Ubuntu?

You should not have bolded the "is", but the "if", cause this thread is about testing. And, hand on the heart, most people run at minimum stable with backports.

I assume you are being sarcastic? Or maybe you've never used Ubuntu? Ubuntu is not a "rolling release" distro; they have a stable (in the Debian meaning of the word "stable") release every 6 months, the current being 10.10 Maverick Meerkat.

If you are going to compare Debian Testing with anything, you should compare it with other development releases like Ubuntu Testing, Fedora Rawhide, etc. The best comparison with Debian Sid is a rolling release like Arch.

Just so you know where I stand, I personally use Sid for my home/hobby desktop and CentOS on my work computer.

Anyways, I don't want to argue because I think we basically agree and are just discussing semantics at this point.

Red Hat 6 actually is pretty close to Squeeze, check it out:

http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=debian
http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=redhat

I recently did a 30 day trial of RHEL6 and it does not feel outdated at all.