I've been using Arch Linux for a while now, and while I

>>62160536
Why do you thinking about it?
Do you need more stability?

>>62160536
debian just werks a little more in terms of the stuff it has in repos but arch has aur and i can't go back now

>>62160568
I like the fact that Arch uses the mainline packages (for the most part) without making any changes, but that can be a double edged sword. Isn't Debian also a bleeding edge distro?

>>62160571
The AUR is one of the big things stopping me.

>>62160587
debian testing is, debian is not

>>62160536
Anything but Ubuntu is waste of time.

>>62160624
Would you consider debian testing to be "safe"? i.e. would I run the risk of it blowing up in my face without it being my fault?

File: 2017-08-29-230915_1366x768_scrot.png (189KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 1366x768px

chek dis 7 day uptime. ubuntu is the shit. ive done all sorts of jank shit with this.

>>62160670
yes you would run that risk and at that rate i don't see any point in switching, end effect is a different package manager and no aur...

>>62160772
well (from what I understand at least) the Debian developers make modifications to the packages to make sure that they play nicely with each other.

Also this is just nit-picking, but I've never been a fan of the way Arch packages libraries (which I'm usually only installing as dependencies for other software) with headers and occasionally utilities I'll never ever use.

>>62160801
so do arch devs, debian stable is when they decide that is fully the case though, use that if you want but you won't get a better rolling release than arch

what happened to Terry?

>>62160801
>>62160835
this of it like this:
debian testing has packages in testing for debian stable

arch is created from inception to be a rolling release distro

>>62160670
Even debian testing is on the conservative side. It is not a bleeding edge distro. Debian unstable is closer to the edge, and packages don't move into testing until they've been in unstable for a little while. Then there is debian experimental for the newest stuff, but that is not recommended for normal use.

>>62160843
IIRC, wasn't his account banned?

>>62160835
>>62160848
>>62160892
I've gotten used to Arch's bleeding edge (usually) rolling release style. For non-security/critical updates, does Debian usually have a huge latency?

>>62160843
He's fine, someone got him a drumset
http://www.templeos.org/Videos/MAH00228.MP4

>>62160951
Debian only upgrades package major versions for distro releases. Maybe every 1.5 to 2 years. In between those, packages only get security and bug fixes.

For example, debian stable currently ships with Python 3.5. It won't get 3.6 or 3.7 until the next stable release probably in early 2019. It will only get Python updates in the 3.5.x series.

This is how Debian achieves its legendary stability... at the cost of running old software.

The one exception I can think of is web browsers. They get major version upgrades in between distro releases.

>>62160951
>>62161065
did he stop making drunk videos

>>62161089
Damn, I can understand preferring stability over newish software to an extent, but doesn't some software require Python 3.7?

>>62161243
Welcome to the world of back ports my friend, it makes your computer simple and easy to use!

File: muzziesaffirmaction.jpg (360KB, 676x505px) Image search: [Google]

360KB, 676x505px

>>62160951
Testing won't get timely security updates.