What's with Debian and their retarded practice of using

>>58514476
What do you care about it? Do you have to maintain one?

I swear to God, you autists just can't stand things that are different from yours.

>>58514476
that is how debian works

1. package gets in unstable
2. after testing it, it goes to testing
3. after fixing it up it get "frozen". Frozen packages get in "stable"
4. stable ships ONE version of most software. Kinda providing a stable and still platform for servers and to develop software for.

And this is what people EXPECT. When we were in jessie, companies PAID people and debian to keep squeeze (the version before wheezy which is now oldstable) alive with security patches because they built their infrastructure on it. This is how debian LTS was born.

Just like how companies and governments still cling on windows fucking XP after 17 years.

>>58514476
>I use Arch and it's the most fucking stable distro I've ever used
Let me guess, you use a webbrowser, a filebrowser, and a media player, nothing else, maybe a mail client. Yet you talk about how stable distro x is compared to any other distro.

>arch
>stable

please

>>58514595
I have 653 packages installed. That's quite a good sample size.

>>58514595
He means compared to debian

>>58514876
kek, no.

>>58514887
My point is that every distro is stable if all you use it for is a youtube machine.

>>58514876
Debian stable here @1660.
That's not a good metric for stability.

File: stepupsenpai.jpg (32KB, 463x462px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 463x462px

>>58514595
>daily driver
>workstation
>home server
>several webbrowsers
>several DE's+WM's
>mail client :^)
>qemu PCI passthrough with 980 GTX
>virtualbox VM's
>freedom

Enjoy curry smelling IIS and Hyper-V garbage

>>58515170
t. computer pro with single digit uptime

>>58514476
The only old package on debian that bothers me is GTK. Some software looks like shit because of that.