By the definition of Stable, "apt-get update && apt-get upgrade" won't do anything (other than get security and bug fixes). That's the whole point of Stable - it doesn't change (that is, it's stable).

So most of the packages in the current Stable (Woody, IIRC) are actually over a year old, now. I forget exactly how old, but most people consider them out of date. This is actually one of the biggest criticisms of Debian, that its Stable tends to stagnate. That's fair, and that's why most people who want to use it for anything other than a rock-solid server don't generally use Stable.

You're definitely looking at Testing.

I like Debian. It r0x0rs my b0x0rs. I've thought about trying Ubuntu (finally a n00b distro that doesn't use RPM's!!! YEAH!!) but since I'm happy with Debian I don't see much point in switching atm.

I use Testing. It's not as unstable as Unstable (which compared to some other distros (*cough Mandrake cough*) is still pretty stable) but not as old and crusty as Stable. If you need the ultra latest and greatest of something you can always just download the Unstable packages (or Experimental if you're feeling brave).

i don't care much for bleeding-edge tech. what i want is something STABLE as a casual desktop os with better package management than slackware. i'd prefer to have a better "extra" software selection through a simple interface than slackware. sure i can download tar-gz's, bz2's and rpm's, but i swear nobody lists every depency for anything. i just get the impression that debian might be what i'm looking for.

as far as a stable, casual desktop os, should i look at stable or testing?

edit: keep in mind i like that slackware and it's software NEVER crash or lock up, and i like that. :)

In terms of Stable, Testing, and Unstable, all stability refers to is how frequently the packages change. In Stable the packages don't change at all (or only change to fix bugs). In Testing, the packages change somewhat, and in Unstable they change frequently. It's more a reflection on how new and shiny the packages are, rather than how solid they are.

Unstable is generally damn solid, but from time to time some things break. They try to avoid that, but it happens, and the user has to have a decent understanding of the system to be able to deal with it.

Almost all the time any serious breakage is caught in Unstable before a package gets anywhere near Testing. Testing is pretty damn solid, and that, if you are seriously considering Debian, is what I would recommend.

Eventually, Testing splits into Stable and a new Testing. Stable doesn't change, and at the moment the current Stable is quite old. Testing continues as it had previously.

thanks for the info, doc. i get the feeling i should check out the testing version of debian at some point. if anyone else would like to share, feel free.

There is an extra bonus for going with testing: the Debian Installer. It's simple and fast, and a huge improvement over the previous installer (at least the last time I used it). I'll also just echo that the Testing is already very well tested and highly unlikely to cause any problems.

as far as installing and configuration i prefer 100% control. i like software that does everything for me ONLY if it does it the way i'd do it myself. i get the idea this "installer" is something i might not like, but thanks for pointing it out for me to look at.

Then you should take another look at Gentoo. It is especially well suited for older machines, getting it running on an old 386 is no problem as long as you compile the packages on another computer :)

if only i had the hd space to install both gentoo and debian without touching xp pro and slackware....

I used to use Debian on my old HP Visualize C240 (240 MHz PA-RISC) until it decided it didn't want to start at all anymore. Out of all the Linux clones I tried Debian was probably the best, it was easy to use and configure but didn't use rpms. And yeah, I'd definately recommend testing for desktop use. Stable is for those who are running servers that require 110% uptime. I'd bet that for regular desktop use testing will give you at least 99% uptime (excluding anything stupid that you do to break it).