История изменений

Ты это рассказываешь человеку, у которого Сид - основной дистрибутив на основном компьютере уже 3 года (один и тот же инсталл). Тестинг был несколько месяцев перед тем и проблем за эти пару месяцев было в разы больше. Ну и так, для справки:

https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/ch-choosing.en.html

3.1 Which Debian distribution (stable/testing/unstable) is better for me?

If security or stability are at all important for you: install stable. period. This is the most preferred way.

If you are a new user installing to a desktop machine, start with stable. Some of the software is quite old, but it's the least buggy environment to work in. You can easily switch to the more modern unstable (or testing) once you are a little more confident.

If you are a desktop user with a lot of experience in the operating system and does not mind facing the odd bug now and then, or even full system breakage, use unstable. It has all the latest and greatest software, and bugs are usually fixed swiftly.

Stable is rock solid. It does not break and has full security support. But it not might have support for the latest hardware.

Testing has more up-to-date software than Stable, and it breaks less often than Unstable. But when it breaks, it might take a long time for things to get rectified. Sometimes this could be days and it could be months at times. It also does not have permanent security support.

Unstable has the latest software and changes a lot. Consequently, it can break at any point. However, fixes get rectified in many occasions in a couple of days and it always has the latest releases of software packaged for Debian.

Так что иди поспорь с самими разработчиками дебиана.

Ты это рассказываешь человеку, у которого Сид - основной дистрибутив на основном компьютере уже 3 года (один и тот же инсталл). Тестинг был несколько месяцев перед тем и проблем за эти пару месяцев было в разы больше. Ну и так, для справки:

https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/ch-choosing.en.html

3.1 Which Debian distribution (stable/testing/unstable) is better for me?

If security or stability are at all important for you: install stable. period. This is the most preferred way.

[bold]If you are a new user installing to a desktop machine, start with stable.[/bold] Some of the software is quite old, but it's the least buggy environment to work in. You can easily switch to the more modern unstable (or testing) once you are a little more confident.

[bold]If you are a desktop user with a lot of experience in the operating system and does not mind facing the odd bug now and then, or even full system breakage, use unstable. [/bold] It has all the latest and greatest software, and bugs are usually fixed swiftly.

Stable is rock solid. It does not break and has full security support. But it not might have support for the latest hardware.

Testing has more up-to-date software than Stable, and it breaks less often than Unstable. But when it breaks, it might take a long time for things to get rectified. Sometimes this could be days and it could be months at times. It also does not have permanent security support.

Unstable has the latest software and changes a lot. Consequently, it can break at any point. However, fixes get rectified in many occasions in a couple of days and it always has the latest releases of software packaged for Debian.

Так что иди поспорь с самими разработчиками дебиана.

Ты это рассказываешь человеку, у которого Сид - основной дистрибутив на основном компьютере уже 3 года (один и тот же инсталл). Тестинг был несколько месяцев перед тем и проблем за эти пару месяцев было в разы больше. Ну и так, для справки:

https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/ch-choosing.en.html

3.1 Which Debian distribution (stable/testing/unstable) is better for me?

If security or stability are at all important for you: install stable. period. This is the most preferred way.

*If you are a new user installing to a desktop machine, start with stable.* Some of the software is quite old, but it's the least buggy environment to work in. You can easily switch to the more modern unstable (or testing) once you are a little more confident.

*If you are a desktop user with a lot of experience in the operating system and does not mind facing the odd bug now and then, or even full system breakage, use unstable*. It has all the latest and greatest software, and bugs are usually fixed swiftly.

Stable is rock solid. It does not break and has full security support. But it not might have support for the latest hardware.

Testing has more up-to-date software than Stable, and it breaks less often than Unstable. But when it breaks, it might take a long time for things to get rectified. Sometimes this could be days and it could be months at times. It also does not have permanent security support.

Unstable has the latest software and changes a lot. Consequently, it can break at any point. However, fixes get rectified in many occasions in a couple of days and it always has the latest releases of software packaged for Debian.

Так что иди поспорь с самими разработчиками дебиана.

Ты это рассказываешь человеку, у которого Сид - основной дистрибутив на основном компьютере уже 3 года (один и тот же инсталл). Тестинг был несколько месяцев перед тем и проблем за эти пару месяцев было в разы больше. Ну и так, для справки:

https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/ch-choosing.en.html

3.1 Which Debian distribution (stable/testing/unstable) is better for me?

If security or stability are at all important for you: install stable. period. This is the most preferred way.

If you are a new user installing to a desktop machine, start with stable. Some of the software is quite old, but it's the least buggy environment to work in. You can easily switch to the more modern unstable (or testing) once you are a little more confident.

If you are a desktop user with a lot of experience in the operating system and does not mind facing the odd bug now and then, or even full system breakage, use unstable. It has all the latest and greatest software, and bugs are usually fixed swiftly.

Stable is rock solid. It does not break and has full security support. But it not might have support for the latest hardware.

Testing has more up-to-date software than Stable, and it breaks less often than Unstable. But when it breaks, it might take a long time for things to get rectified. Sometimes this could be days and it could be months at times. It also does not have permanent security support.

Unstable has the latest software and changes a lot. Consequently, it can break at any point. However, fixes get rectified in many occasions in a couple of days and it always has the latest releases of software packaged for Debian.

Так что иди поспорь с самими разработчиками дебиана.

Ты это рассказываешь человеку, у которого Сид - основной дистрибутив на основном компьютере уже 3 года (один и тот же инсталл). Тестинг был несколько месяцев перед тем и проблем за эти пару месяцев было в разы больше. Ну и так, для справки:

https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/ch-choosing.en.html

3.1 Which Debian distribution (stable/testing/unstable) is better for me?

If security or stability are at all important for you: install stable. period. This is the most preferred way.

If you are a new user installing to a desktop machine, start with stable. Some of the software is quite old, but it's the least buggy environment to work in. You can easily switch to the more modern unstable (or testing) once you are a little more confident.

If you are a desktop user with a lot of experience in the operating system and does not mind facing the odd bug now and then, or even full system breakage, use unstable. It has all the latest and greatest software, and bugs are usually fixed swiftly.

Stable is rock solid. It does not break and has full security support. But it not might have support for the latest hardware.

Testing has more up-to-date software than Stable, and it breaks less often than Unstable. *But when it breaks, it might take a long time for things to get rectified. Sometimes this could be days and it could be months at times.* It also does not have permanent security support.

Unstable has the latest software and changes a lot. Consequently, it can break at any point. However, fixes get rectified in many occasions in a couple of days and it always has the latest releases of software packaged for Debian.

Так что иди поспорь с самими разработчиками дебиана.

Ты это рассказываешь человеку, у которого Сид - основной дистрибутив на основном компьютере уже 3 года (один и тот же инсталл). Тестинг был несколько месяцев перед тем и проблем за эти пару месяцев было в разы больше. Ну и так, для справки:

https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/ch-choosing.en.html

3.1 Which Debian distribution (stable/testing/unstable) is better for me?

If security or stability are at all important for you: install stable. period. This is the most preferred way.

If you are a new user installing to a desktop machine, start with stable. Some of the software is quite old, but it's the least buggy environment to work in. You can easily switch to the more modern unstable (or testing) once you are a little more confident.

If you are a desktop user with a lot of experience in the operating system and does not mind facing the odd bug now and then, or even full system breakage, use unstable. It has all the latest and greatest software, and bugs are usually fixed swiftly.

Stable is rock solid. It does not break and has full security support. But it not might have support for the latest hardware.

Testing has more up-to-date software than Stable, and it breaks less often than Unstable. *But when it breaks, it might take a long time for things to get rectified. Sometimes this could be days and it could be months at times.* It also does not have permanent security support.

Unstable has the latest software and changes a lot. Consequently, it can break at any point. However, fixes get rectified in many occasions in a couple of days and it always has the latest releases of software packaged for Debian.

Так что иди поспорь с самими разработчиками дебиана.