Why aren't the developers of debian making a version based on 6 month release cycle like fedora...

why aren't the developers of debian making a version based on 6 month release cycle like fedora? it would be the best distribution. debian in its current form is the perfect standard baseline distro but you get either quite outdated packages on stable or frequent instability on sid

Attached: debian-logo-563x500.png (563x500, 30K)

>fedora
>6 month cycle
fedora almost never came on time

>it would be the best
>admits upfront that their shit is either outdated on one end or unstable in the other
Yeah, I wish they released more outdated and unstable shit regularly. I wish debian faggots would just die already. Even ubuntu is better than your piece of shit.

sid isn't that bad. Haven't had any major issues in the last two years

>Even ubuntu is better than your piece of shit.
>even
ubuntu is literary debian with 6 month release cycle >_>

>ubuntu is better than your poece of shit.
Enjoy your botnet buntufag. Debian is the best non-meme, non-botnet distro

Fuck are you talking about sid and testing both work fine.

I don't use it. I'm saying that ubuntu at least isn't unstable and 99% of its shit isn't outdated.

There is no real reason to use debian at all. It has zero benefits over any other OS. It is so broken and outdated that they have advice on the wiki about how not to break the fuck out of it. When your OS is so bad that it requires rigid rituals and maintenance to make sure it doesn't fall apart, maybe it's time to update your shit.

but that's just because they dont have a version with a cycle in between, its not hard to understand

i would still not be comfortable using it as my work os

That's what backports is for OP...
There's also apt pinning for specific targeting.
For example I can have a stable core of apts but I can whitelist mesa/AMDVK/ for testing repos.
This way I always have the newest graphics stack.
If something crashes it's not my core kernel/userspace/bootloader disabling my whole system.

Debian has point releases on stable and also has a rolling release on testing.

> Be Debian
> Be so stable that's literally the distro of choice for webservers world abroad
> "Debian's broken af dude wtf"

>ubuntu not unstable
>bricks lenovo chipsets by flashing nand with intel chipset update
>during meltdown updates they brick dell and hp laptops firmwares
>roll back twice
OY

I run Debian sid and put literally no work into keeping my machine from breaking. I frequently install packages with total disregard for stability and I currently have 3906 packages installed. I keep important documents and media on my computer and use it for literally 12 hours or more a day. In the past year I have had maybe 2 instances where my computer was rendered "unusable" (fixable in under 15 minutes with reading error messages and logs), for a total of maybe an hour of time I was prevented from using my computer. Both of those times were caused by propietary nvidia driver updates.

> it would be the best distribution
Please. Apt, dpkg, debuilder, pbuilder and all that crap is fucked up.

Worst among popular distros since fedora fixed up dnf, really.

This.
Nvidia proprietary drives run in a kernel module because they can't be baked into the kernel since they aren't foss.

That means they have to be rebuilt every kernel update or else they will be broken.
AMD is baked in the kernel which means you don't have to shut down your graphics stack and build a new one when you update your kernel.

When I'm running testing sometimes the newer kernel doesn't even have a nvidia proprietary built for it yet because Nvidia is slacking behind foss and want to keep building the driver around thei their linux kernel fork at 4.9 instead of upstreaming.

Ruins the whole experience.

>Debian
>Unstable
People literally pick this distro for stability above all other things.

Attached: 1520260168809.gif (245x250, 916K)

Amazing, too bad nouveau was absolute broken shit last I tried. Nvidia shit has caused the majority of serious problems I've had in Linux.

This guy literally shitposts in every thread about Debian with the same shitty arguments

There's nothing wrong with apt and dpkg, also check out sbuild.

Why would you want that? If you want bleeding edge packages then use sid. If you just want newer versions of a couple packages then use backports on stable.

>why aren't the developers of debian
They don't need to.

apt still has a not so goodresolver and does not expose enough of dpkg to deal with most sysadmin tier issues such as forcing a file overwrite (for which it has an error, just no way to deal with it).

It generally isn't that great functionally or as a cli. Apk, dnf, equo, emerge, zypper and many more are more sensible.

And sbuild may be a better tool than the others (wasn't the official thing yet when I tried), but it seems to me it still uses the old debian way to do configuration for the packages with a /debian subdir. Don't like that either, apkbuild / pkgbuild / ebuild and so on are better, even rpm spec are better.

because a time-based release cycle is why software sucks

Attached: wew.jpg (800x800, 477K)

Translation:
>There's so many problems that I've become desensitised to them