Why the unstable version?

**turbine** · 12-07-2003, 02:19 PM

Please excuse my terminology if it isn't quite exactly right, but I read that the knoppix os is based on the unstable version of debian. If this is true, why was the unstable version chosen? I was thinking of doing a hdd installation and then doing apt-gets as a nice way of installing a full fledged debian os. But the unstable version? Don't know about that.

**bxb32001** · 12-07-2003, 02:42 PM

IIRC, Knoppix is a mix of the Testing and Unstable trees of Debian. 'Stable', 'Testing', and 'Unstable' are basically stages of the Debian development process and packages are grouped according to their status.

Packages in stable have undergone rigorous testing and have passed the Debian criterias for the particular release. Testing is just that -- they are undergoing testing... Unstable is the latest and the greatest... 'bleeding edge' if you will.

The 'unstable' branch of Debian doesn't necessarily mean it is... it's just that it falls under that criteria in the Debian project. If your check distrowatch.com for package comparisons with other distros, you would notice that a number of them use package that Debian classifies as 'unstable'. It doesn't necesssarily mean that it is.

There are a number of things that the distro you know as Knoppix aims for and IMO, it does the job perfectly. Unless you plan on using Debian as a server, I think you'll do well and fine with the HD install of Knoppix.

**turbine** · 12-07-2003, 03:08 PM

Thank you, bxb32001, if I may I have a follow up question.

I have the 7 cd set of debian woody on order, I received my knoppix first and have been playing with it. Now I understand that once knoppix is hdd installed, then you can apt-get directly from the debian cdroms as a quicker way of updating the os. This sounds great! However, since the knoppix hdd is the unstable debian and I've ordered the stable debian cd's, will I still be able to do my upgrades directly from cd's in this fashion?

Thanks again for your reply.

**Stephen** · 12-07-2003, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by turbine

Thank you, bxb32001, if I may I have a follow up question.

I have the 7 cd set of debian woody on order, I received my knoppix first and have been playing with it. Now I understand that once knoppix is hdd installed, then you can apt-get directly from the debian cdroms as a quicker way of updating the os. This sounds great! However, since the knoppix hdd is the unstable debian and I've ordered the stable debian cd's, will I still be able to do my upgrades directly from cd's in this fashion?

Thanks again for your reply.

Unfortunately no if you use the woody cd's you will downgrade the install of Knoppix to the stable distribution.

**bxb32001** · 12-08-2003, 01:37 AM

Most (if not all) of the packages included in Knoppix are newer than those on the Debian CDs.

Packages in the 'unstable' tree are the most recent ones.

**Cuddles** · 12-14-2003, 04:36 PM

Pardon me, I have been reading this thread, and think I can shed some light on the subject -=- or atleast be able to shed some light on what I am thinking is being said... (sometimes you have to ask to find out if your right or not.)

Debian "Unstable" is like a programmer saying "Beta"
Debian "Testing" is identical as a programmer saying the same thing
Debian "Stable" is when it is ready for shipment, tested as much as humanly possible, and "most if not all" bugs have been isolated and/or removed.

Getting a Debian Unstable version is not a bad thing, just means you have the code in a Beta, and could/should expect to find something that may have issues. ( am I right? )

Unstable doesn't imply you WILL have problems, just that you might. This can be true, no issues that is, if the UNSTABLE parts will never be used in the release you have. In some cases, if a Unstable version is released with Server Code changed in it, to a market that doesn't, or won't, use the Server appications, the problem may never be noticed.

Besides, if I am right, I have been programming for more than 20 years now, and no matter how hard you try and Beta Test your own software, somewhere in the world someone has a configuration that you may not, or would never, think about testing against.

??????????
Cuddles

**A. Jorge Garcia** · 12-14-2003, 05:05 PM

turbine, why don't you just apt-get online?

Regards,

**turbine** · 12-21-2003, 01:01 PM

Thank you all very much for your responses, I've learned quite a bit from what you've told me. Like a lot of you I've been a software developer for a large number of years. Recently I broke away from the business of developing software for wages and decided to launch a business that partially makes use of the skills that I learned over the years. At the core of this business will be an engine, if you will, that will be scanning the internet, collecting, categorizing, and analyzing certain information. The information will be presented to me on demand, with which I will make purchase and sales decisions. Once set up and started, this engine has to run constantly in an unattended mode and has to be extremely reliable and robust. It has to be "set it and forget it".
I knew that M'soft didn't have an os that would suit my purposes and, having used Red Hat in the past, I started looking at different Linux distributions. I acquired Knoppix and was literally amazed at how far things had progressed since I last used any Linux system. Then I saw that Knoppix was Debian based and Debian had the concept of stable and unstable etc. That led me to acquiring Debian Woody while still investigating Knoppix. This is why the concept of "stable" is important to me.

**Cuddles** · 12-21-2003, 04:59 PM

Turbine,

I think, no, actually, I can HONESTLY say, that Linux is by far the most stable OS you can find - paid for or not. From what I have read, and what I have seen in the posts on this forum, I don't think any OS can even come close to what ANY of the Linux "flavors" not only "preach" but DELIVER on.

I so strongly believe this statement, that I went back down to the puter store I was having a system built at, which was probably going to get Win98SE installed on, and had them completely re-vamp the hardware install to allow Linux to be happy on. Most notable issue was the standard WinModem that comes in "most" "standard" computer systems. I had them include a USB "standard" modem on the side.

I don't think you can go wrong, with your idea, and it being "stable", if you plan on using a "flavor" of Linux on it.

From some of the posts I have read, now some of these could be "exagerated" a little, but, even if they are, I can seriously say, I still believe in them: People are consistantly saying that they can leave their systems up for days, weeks, and even months, without needing to reboot. Sounds good to me ! Shesh, I reboot after doing anything with a M$ OS. Reboot after installing a new program, reboot after being on the internet, reboot after working on a wave file, reboot after so many hours, reboot after burning a CD, etc... etc... etc...

Most of these reboots are not for instability, mostly because of the "memory leaks" that seem to eat away at your resources. M$ seems to think the problem is a programmer issue, and a programmer can't always keep memory issues cleaned up. Like when your program crashes, how can you clean up your memory allocation if your program drops off the face of the "OS Earth"? I seriously think it is the responsibility of the OS to keep track of allocated memory, and when it is not being used, place it back into the available pool for re-use, but M$ doesn't think that way. So, you get memory leaks.

Shesh, I edit large wave files, and I can just watch my memory dwindle away chunk by chunk. When I exit the program, you'd think the memory would return, NOPE. I sit with a little over 10k of RAM, never to see my 320 Meg again, unless I reboot. Worse yet, god forbid I start another program without booting. The system either crashes severely, or I freeze. I've had the message: "Unable to run XXXXXXX, please close down any running programs to free memory, or consult your program developer." so many times, and nothing is running!

Amazing M$ has gotten to be so big with all the problems? Just goes to show, if you get your name in the "mainstream" of the public, it will be bought, even with all the memory leaks, security issues, instability, and virus attacks, that APPEAR to only inflict M$ OS's??? Hmmmmm, wonder why?????

[giggle] Maybe this is the "Wrath Of God" coming down on the mighty M$ Monopoly? ( I can't imagine why for the life of me though? )

Cuddles

**Facteur** · 01-17-2004, 01:01 PM

Turbine,

That's a neat description of a business idea. Have you a webpage describing it, or will it be only for your own use?

From what I gather from bxb32001's reply, my interpretation of this issue is:

- The more up-to-date a distro is, the wider the range of hardware setups it will run smoothly on.
- Debian's Stable might indeed be more stable, but this advantage is offset by its (relative) outdatedness.
- In the end, nothing is 100% bug free, Debian's Unstable is more stable than most, and the priority is getting Knoppix installed on as many machine/hardware setups possible so ... the money (time-effort) goes on Unstable.

I have heard that there are other distros which are more oriented towards building up a fully-fledged Debian Machine. Bonzai Linux comes to mind, but actually, hopping around the distrowatch site, will tell you more.