[auvrw]

> after upgrading to the next Debian stable release, my stuff continues to work

can be replaced by

> with frequent upgrades, errors are sparse blips on the Debian testing release

-

standard line: if you're considering Debian for the desktop and want a reasonable mix of stability as well as recent updates,

testing recommended over stable.

[hsivonen]

Testing doesn't, by policy, get reliably timely security patches. https://www.debian.org/security/faq#testing

(I wish Debian had a genuinely supported rolling or rolling-ish flavor. It's bad for the Linux ecosystem when people who don't need to be using out-of-date software use out-of-date software from stable.)

[lamby]

"unstable" (ignore the name, assume it refers to the version numbers...) serves this purpose for many.

[hsivonen]

It does for many, but:

1) The general attitude seems to be that if something breaks, the user is at fault for using something called “unstable”. I.e. it’s not positioned as a way for the casual user to keep using up-to-date software that’d still be smoke-tested enough that you don’t need to be an enthusiast who can resurrect an occasional broken system.

2) While there probably in practice is better security coverage than in testing and backports, formally there still isn’t security support per https://www.debian.org/security/faq#unstable . (I do recognize your HN handle and know you know this, but I’m providing the link for other readers.)

[lamby]

> it’s not positioned as a way for the casual user

Indeed. Any crazy ideas on how to remedy this? :)

[hsivonen]

Repurposing testing as such a distro (not calling it “testing”). Discontinuing stable (i.e. leaving the enterprise use case to Red Hat and SuSE) if the security team doesn’t have capacity to support both.

[lamby]

That's a huge ask. My query was really about "rebranding" unstable.