And Ubuntu 24.04 LTS is using 6.8.
Ubuntu releases a new version every six months, but an LTS — which is probably what most people run in production — only every two years. Debian releases come out every two years.
So if you only run Ubuntu LTS, the release cadence is the same as Debian.
Which only came out a few months ago, and which only recently released its .1, so the do-release-upgrade message only recently appeared for most people.
I'd be interested to know how many folks have changed their current production over to 26TLS in the last six months. I'm guessing not a lot.
So yes, there is a newer LTS, but what is its current market share as compared to 24 TLS (or even 22LTS)?
Ubuntu releases its LTSes in even years, and Debian does its releases in odd years:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_release_version_history...
(I mean nothing is 100% but I've been mixing packages for like 2 decades now and literally can't remember any specific trouble resulting from it.)
While I won't deny that this may often work, I disagree that it's a good idea, and that `apt` being smart is sufficient to guarantee that this works (or keeps working in the future).
Pinning specific packages from `testing` or `unstable` is explicitly discouraged, for very good reasons covered by this classic link: https://wiki.debian.org/DontBreakDebian#Don.27t_make_a_Frank... .
Arguably, the backports kernel is the right choice to get a newer kernel on Debian Stable. Indeed, in the past, the backports kernel could take awhile to update, but no more - case in point, `trixie-backports` currently contains `7.2`, same as `unstable`.
Either way backports does sound like the best option, sure.
You either want to have the new stuff or LTS. You can't have both.
If you want real testing, you should run "unstable". If you're in for fun, try experimental.
Running Testing on my desktops and stable on my servers since forever. None of them broke, none of them created problems.
I don't care Stable running 6.x.x. It gets security updates in less than 24h, and is applied automatically before I wake up, and doesn't ship coreutils with 104CVEs, just because it's Rust.
Again. Stable is for servers, testing is for personal use.
I never argued otherwise, ever.
However, while Testing is "relatively secure", it's never "Server secure". I'd never use testing or testing packages in stable or any server for that matter.
I have to add that for me, testing definitely breaks stuff sometimes. Nothing beyond my ability to fix, though. Nothing beyond anyone's ability now that AI is around.
That's interesting, can you give an example? Asking as a curious Debian user.
However, one thing that many people don't know is that Testing enters a package freeze every time a new Stable release is to come out. And this freeze can last anywhere between 4 to 7 months. So for that time period, it stops having frequent updates and becomes essentially a stable distro.
It's not 'as supported', sure, but I'll also note that wifi, at least, has worked on pretty much every modern laptop which I have installed Debian upon.
Why not just install a newer Linux version from the official backports repository if you need it?
You get 7.12 from backports?
But nobody runs Debian stable on their laptop.
They run Debian unstable or testing, with firmware.
And everything just works