On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 06:48:21PM +0100, Sam wrote: > Thanks for your points of view! I agree that Stable comes at a cost, and of > course if I ever were to set up a server Debian would probably be my choice. > > Regarding derivatives, I know about Ubuntu, Mint, etc., but I don't exactly > like distributions tied to or ultimately dependant on commercial entities (I > want a change of air after going through Ubuntu, openSUSE...)
I recently made the move to Debian after being a Ubuntu user since 4.10 (first release). > I have also seen independent Debian derivatives (MX Linux comes to mind), but > they either used backports or the Testing distribution. > > I would happily consider using Debian Testing for example, but wherever I see > someone asking about it I always find someone discouraging from using it due > to the possibility of having broken or unsecure packages for a long time due > to it being automated. Is it actually usable for a Workstation? The same > would A lot of people seem to be using Testing as such. > apply to Sid, I can no longer allow myself to fix big breakages after broken > updates (I don't know if that really happens often in Sid) I chose Debian Stable because I need to get work done and can't afford disruptions due to broken updates - I already have to deal with broken internet connectivity, ISP/institutional shenanigans from time to time. I kept my old Ubuntu LTS instance running while I setup Debian Stable with stuff that gave me the same functionality. I have customised my Stable instance with the software that is minimally resource intensive (no GNOME/KDE/XFCE). To make the decision easier: * When work is important stick with Debian Stable * HTH, Didar > Thanks, > Sam > > -- Somewhere in Tenafly, New Jersey, a chiropractor is viewing "Leave it to Beaver"!
