Debian has warned us, its Sid should be NEVER practiced as server and Sid is led to ANY broken aspects, Fedora has also warned of the Rawhide unstability, you should NEVER use Rawhide unless you need to test the latest Linux kernel, I have an experience which Rawhide has broken my kernel and the whole system is no longer booted. What are your experiences guys?

I've been using Fedora Rawhide, often as my primary Linux, since it first appeared. Rawhide has installed broken kernels, broken systemd, broken NetworkManager, broken LibreOffice, broken Xorg, broken LightDM, and many, many other broken programs. No big deal. I just back out the offending programs, restore what previously worked, file a bug report (if one doesn't already exist), and go on.

it depends on your needs.... What is your goal?

For Sid, it is proposed which you are an developer for a Debian derivative like Ubuntu, LMDE, or Kali etc.
For Rawhide, I want to improve dnf or I want to port the latest dnf to SuSE and urpmi systems, even a Debian derivative to replace the aging yum.

For what it's worth, I've had a Debian Sid instance installed on multiple computers - both newer 64-bit units and older 32-bit units, and I've used desktop and laptop systems. I've used Debian regularly since 2001 and in that entire time, Sid has failed on a careless apt-get dist-upgrade only once or twice in that time, and even that could have been avoided with a bit of caution. I even mixed repositories and only got caught with an issue when I was either very careless or deliberately trying to break it. With only moderate care, you can create a personal instance of Debian Sid and plan to have it for a long time. The usual precautions are advised - backups, other alternatives and means of recovering, repairing, or replacing the software in the event of a failure, and it's not recommended for "you bet your business" activities. Use it in a test lab or a personal system and you'll be fine, taking all of this into account.

I have used Debian Sid for a number of years (with a break of several years in between) and can recall no issues. I would not hesitate to use it as a home server--indeed, I have done so. I would never use a testing distro, even one as stable as Sid, in the Enterprise.

Fedora's too bleeding edge for my taste.

If the Debian guys say Sid is not intended for production purposes... Sure you can run Sid on one of your home machines or one of your home servers. I have several servers around mostly as VMs running Sid.

But not my production desktop, even less so my production home server. See, IF it breaks it will cost me time to repair. And that may come at an inconvenient moment. Even if no data loss is involved. It can be as easy as a new version of a package which do not let you authorize anymore against some terrible important protocol you use.

For production servers (like mail servers, web servers) the thought should not even cross your mind. Debian Stable is for that. Imagine yourself trying to solve that one nasty bug which has not even been reported yet.

jlinkels

When it came to degrees of hell.

I thought Debian Experimental repos would be closer to rawhide?

I have a little experience with Debian Experimental repos enabled in one of my AntiX installs. It was A SELF TEACHING, LEARNING PROCESS KIND OF THING FOR ME.
Rawhide was a disaster for me . But others mileage may vary from mine.
I am rpm dyslexic.

We are sure Sid should be never treated as productional due to high unstability, but Debian stable is not always best for productional servers, a rolling system is better, like Arch, which you can be always secured by upgrading anytime, for Debian stable as server, you will still sometimes miss out security updates, which the most LTS users are too lazy to upgrade their systems.

I I run SID (and I do on occasion) I use either SPARKY LINUX or VSIDO so that mine are not the only eyes watching for breakdown conditions in the repo update list. I have had VSIDO let me down once, but ONLY once.

experimental is not a complete distribution and on occasions, packages in experimental are not newer than those in unstable. So a mix of unstable and/or testing with some newer packages from experimental would be a closer match, but it's unlikely to be quite so "bleeding edge".

I used unstable and testing and mixed unstable/testing from about 10 years ago for a few years and one thing hasn't changed: anecdotal evidence from forum users about how usable it is and how long they ran it for without a hiccup, etc...

From experience I can tell you that it needs more maintenance and some basic skill with package management tools. There are upgrades in unstable which can utterly break your system and you do need the basic knowledge to recover from said breakage - i.e chrooting into the broken system and installing an older version of the package(s) from testing or from snapshots and then pinning or holding the package(s) temporarily until the problem is resolved.

There are doubtless still users around who know how to do this kind of thing, but from what I've seen on the de facto official forums, most Debian users who use the forums, can barely install a package without using a graphical front end and are clueless with regards to the sources file, let alone apt pinning. And when they do attempt it, they mix stable and unstable (or throw 'buntu into the mix...).

And an even tinier minority know how to to build their own backports, either by using the unstable sources, or by Debianising upstream source.

Most threads are pretty much "X won't start", or how to install the proprietary drivers, or how to get the firmware or how to install some package which isn't in the repositories, or look at my kewl desktop...
Your arguments make absolutely no sense.

considering that rawhide is the NEXT alpha and beta version and may not even run on your hardware NOR even boot
right now it is the mostly non working fedora 28 development ALPHA version that might not run on anything yet

-- have fun

Thus, is the ''Branched'' channel after Rawhide but also before alpha?

Any of the Debian repos can be accompanied by Debian Security repos, so if there is ever a (rare) case where an important security change is not picked up elsewhere, it most certainly will be caught in Debian Security.

Debian rates very well in keeping up with security changes, as do the Red Hat derivatives. The only Linux distributions of any kind that may not rank well in this regard are under-maintained distributions lacking a timely upstream source and that is certainly NOT Debian, Red Hat, or any of their regularly maintained branches and derivatives.