I'm running Jessie (testing) and I plan to run Sid (unstable). How stable is it? How often does it break?

I update my jessie install like once every 1 or 2 days, always before I shut the system down. Is it OK if I keep this habit or do I need to update it more often?

The clue is in the name "unstable"...

testing and unstable are both "unstable" systems... that is to say that they are prone to changes - sometimes big changes - which can cause breakage. Stable is stable.

testing filters out a lot of the more serious bugs. If you want to run unstable you will have to install apt-listbugs and apt-listchanges, if you haven't already, and micromanage your upgrades. Upgrading testing/unstable once every two days is ok.

Sid is, in my not so humble opinion, relatively stable. Let me put it this way, I left Ubuntu and after a little while started using Sid and found Sid more stable than Ubuntu. It can break but the only time it broke on me the problem was something I caused by playing around to much.

With regards to updating that is personal choice. I generally use update notifier and if it tells me there is an update I do a quick Google or check the various forums (LQ, Debian user, etc) and if nothing shows up as a problem I download the update. After you download the update read anything that comes up with apt-listbugs and make an informed choice based on information provided.

1 members found this post helpful.

The name does not refer to it's actual stability for what I could see. Stable, in Debian means, is like "it will never ever ever break". Testing might break but in few rare occasions, but when it does it can take longer to fix than Unstable. Unstable, well, I'm looking forward to it. Personally I never had a breakage on Debian, even on Testing. The only thing that went wrong was the upgrade from Wheeze to Jessie, but I didn't know the advantages of upgrading in 'init 3'.

Unstable won't mean that the system will be actually unstable.

Which version of Ubuntu? For all I know, Ubuntu 12.04 (example) is based off mainly of Debian Testing. Other releases like 13.04 or 13.10 might be based off of Unstable but I didn't take the time to look it up yet.
So, regarding Debian, I would never use it if it's as unstable/more unstable than Ubuntu. Ubuntu is a shame when it comes ti many things and stability is one of them.

Personally, I'm willing to upgrade in order to play FlightGear. Jessie's repos don't have the game and I can't re-partition my drive since I already have 4 primary partitions (yes I know, what a stupid choice to use 4 primaries LOL).

I use my system to design whith GIMP, play with Steam, web-surf, music, videos etc. I'm not a hardcore user, I just expect the system to do what I want.

If you're running testing and want to install packages from unstable - you can do that. There is no need to completely upgrade to unstable.

Unstable means that the system will be unstable. This is an old question and you could have found the answer here or at the debian forums...

unstable does not mean "it crashes", it means "prone to change". The stable system freezes at specific versions, testing also eventually goes into a freeze - unstable does not (yes it does slow down a lot).

With the unstable system you do get bugs, but because not just any old package can get into unstable and because it's not strictly bleeding edge, many users find it trouble free. No one can tell you that unstable is "pretty stable" or "just fine", etc, unless they've installed every package on every architecture. Yes, I have no doubt you will probably install Sid and have no real problems - but it is still unstable.

I remember this one a few years ago: http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=51996

2 members found this post helpful.

Ubuntu LTS releases are based on Testing, Ubuntu non-LTS on Unstable, so i'd say the stability is about the same as non-LTS Ubuntu. Probably better though, as many Ubuntu issues seems to originate in Unity (IME, Xubuntu is more stable than Ubuntu for example).

1 members found this post helpful.

k3lt01 already said what I would have said, mostly. Unstable actually seems more stable than testing, in my experience. And screw all that backports and apt-pinning business. If this isn't for servers or mission critical stuff, just go for it.

1 members found this post helpful.

Unity is just one of the many problems on Ubuntu. The system itself is worth nothing IMO =]

I also find full upgrades better than backporting and pinning. Mixing systems, according to many sources, is not a good idea, and for what I read Sid is pretty stable.

But I guess there will be no need for me to upgrade, for two reasons:

1. FlightGear is broken on Sid's repo.
2. The script to build FlightGear from source is working again.

Backporting and pinning are not even related. Pinning is messy. With backporting, if you do it correctly, you should not need any kind of pinning. Stable + backports is a good system. The last debian system I ran was stable with some of my own backports and my own custom kernel - it was solid. Prior to that I ran unstable for a few years.

You can safely mix testing, unstable and experimental. You cannot mix any of those with stable, unless you are prepared to deal with a broken system. Again, Sid is not "pretty stable", Sid is unstable - but yes Sid is "pretty good" and I've always preferred it to testing. If you want to run it, just go for it, but just keep an eye on apt-listbugs.

1 members found this post helpful.

As already pointed out Ubuntu LTS is based on Testing and normal releases are based on Sid. However my comparison, which was highlighted in an email today, is about the work thet Debian do compared to the work that Canonical do.

If you want to know what I mean with Ubuntu and Debian read this specifically comment 54 and then read my reply in comment 56. Seriously 3 and a half years to ask if a bug still exists?

Backporting is a pretty good way, in my opinion, to get a more up to date Stable. I backport for Iceweasel and a few other programs because I don't like websites (such as banks) telling me my browser is not supported.

With regards to Sid, again this is my opinion, it is pretty stable it is not as stable as stable but stable is not a moving release meaning it doesn't get new versions of programs it gets security updates and a few "tweaks but you wont go from LibreOffice 4 to LibreOffice 5 (if they release a 5 in Stable's lifetime) while Sid and to a lesser extent Testing do get new versions. THe introduction of new versions is where instability is introduced because they are relatively untested until they reach Sid and they can move into Testing before a bug is found yet Sid could have yet another new version that has the bug fix already applied. The problem then is because of Debian's bug fixing policy Sid will be more "stable" because a bug has been fixed already but Testing will have the bug until the bug procedure (which includes a time frame that isn't applied to Sid) has been followed through.

1 members found this post helpful.

And I shouldn't have to say this as you use testing already, but as no one else has, if you make the jump: PLEASE read apt-get/aptitude's messages! The number one complaint I see is about packages being removed but if you read what apt* has to say before hitting Y you'll avoid serious breakage of your system.

1 members found this post helpful.

I always test my upgrades on VM's and I always read what's going to change. If I need I even read every single thing it's going to remove to see if it's important.

Yes to all of the above comments. I generally use testing. I do have a backup OS. That is Sid.

I too used to use and test Ubuntu. It is a lot flashier distro. They spend most of the dev time on eye candy. They think Debian testing is as stable as any thing needs to be so they use it as the base for the LTS versions. Sid is plenty stable enough for their "regular" releases.

Debian has a specific definition of the terms;
Stable has no "release critical bugs"
Testing tries to have no "release critical bugs"
Unstable can have "release critical bugs" but they do try to avoid it

Release critical bugs are those that will cause the OS to fail to boot to the desktop.

apt-listbugs has been recommended. It should be thought of as a requirement. I install it on Debian stable. Bugs happen in all distros no matter how stable.

Not sure that I would recommend upgrading right at this moment to Sid. Jessie is pretty much stable right now but Sid has several packages that are buggy. Enough that it is kind of a pain, in my opinion, to micro manage. Doing a version upgrade with the number of packages needed would be even worse.

Give it a week or so and it may well be more stable than Jessie.

As pointed out before, using packages from Sid in Jessie is fine. And will avoid the system packages, like udev, which are currently buggy.

That said, while I am currently using Jessie, I think I enjoy Sid more. Sid is running fine and I will be able, very soon I am sure those buggy packages.

If you upgrade make sure you do not have the package dpkg-dev installed. You don't need it but there is a critical bug against dpkg that is actually a dpkg-dev problem (upgrade fails). You need dpkg to work. You will get the bug report from apt-listbugs. Without dpkg-dev there is no problem upgrading dpkg.

If apt-listbugs gives a list of architectures and yours is not in there it is probably safe to do the upgrade.

Remember that apt-listbugs only lists KNOWN bugs. You could be the lucky bugger to discover a new one.

1 members found this post helpful.

The only reason I was thinking of upgrading to Sid was FlightGear, but I could build it from source with no problems.

I might upgrade to Sid in the future but I need to know if apt-listbugs works automatically, and if it doesn't: how to work with it.

I upgraded to Sid in a VM and it all went fine.

Captain: i also like Xubuntu Which i have running very nice on an old laptop non pae,i've tried it on my more modern pc, i could run it perfectly but could not have it run in HD 1920x1080 resolution,so i had to revert to Ubuntu 12.04LTS which runs 1920x1080 resolution out of the box.
since i'm not that much savy, i probably could get it to work with DVI connection and 1920x1080 but it's probably too much work i prefer the easy way.

1 members found this post helpful.