On Sunday, 19 April 2020 23:30:43 PDT Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Du, 19 apr 20, 13:28:57, Ihor Antonov wrote: > > Reporting from Debian Sid, everything is quite stable. I do run ZFS on > > root > > and make snapshots prior to big upgrades as a pre-caution, but so far > > I did not have a reason to revert anything. > > It's just a matter of time. Even if Debian does much more automated > testing now than in the past some serious issues could still slip > through.
I know, for me this is exactly the point: unstable becomes stable only if someone uses it and finds out issues, reports/fixes them. > > I was using Archlinux for a long time, and I can say that Sid feels > > more stable than Archlinux, although software is less fresh. But > > overall quite usable as a daily driver on my Lenovo X1 Extreme > > As far as I know Archlinux is also not a beginners distro (like Mint or > Ubuntu), so issues that may appear trivial to you can be major > showstoppers for others. Absolutely, no disputing that. I was trying to make a point that "unstable", despite scary name is quite usable. Also as someone mentioned - backports should be the first option to try if you run stable. I run a few servers stable + backports and everything is rock-solid. But I am afraid that we have deviated from the original topic. If I understood Carl correctly - he was expressing his pain because of bureaucratic scrutiny of filing bugs to stable that brings absolutely no results. I can't help much here as I am just a mere user, but IMHO if software in stable does not work - it is a severe bug. It has to be either fixed or software should be removed from stable. Thanks Ihor Antonov
