Debian is Stable

darth · June 20, 2026, 7:08am

20 Jun 2026 · 3 min read

Debian has release stability. Arch, most definitely, does not.

People often mistake the word “stable” in different contexts and I wish to clear up the confusion.

There are two main meanings in the world of GNU/Linux for the word above and these two meanings are vastly different:

once booted the system does not crash, therefore it is stable
once installed the system behaves exactly the same for the lifetime of this install, therefore it is stable

In both examples above you can mix-in the word “reliable” in more than one way as well, but for me personally the word reliable means that I can rely on my computer to be ready to do my bidding when I am ready to use the system. If a daily update changes how my system functions, or worse if it no longer works then the system is not reliable because I can not rely on it.

But allow me to dissect the word stable as it is frequently used. Release stability (Debian) means that as long as you are using “this” install your system will remain predictable. It WILL get security updates, but they will not come via software version updates from upstream. Security updates will be backported to the current version of software and this is done by a special Debian security team. To put it plainly: Your version of Debian comes with your_software v1.3 and it has a security issue which has later been solved in your_software v1.4 so in a rolling-release distribution this is solved by replacing version 1.3 with version 1.4 no matter if this upgrade breaks any of the ten thousand dependencies from the Arch Linux repository. In Debian, on the other hand, this security update is backported manually to your_software v1.3 so your software is now fully patched against malicious attack while remaining the same version as originally shipped — which means that it will not break any of the seventy thousand possible dependencies in the Debian repository.

And it is not just about NOT breaking dependencies from the Debian repository. It also matters for your config files. Let’s say you have a web server for your company and your business generates money by having that webpage online. And you upgrade your rolling distribution and your config file is no longer compatible because upstream web server has changed the format and your website no longer works and you get fired and you are now homeless. Granted, this scenario is not realistic because you are a pro sysadmin and you will read documentation before performing a possibly breaking update and make proper config file changes and testing before deploying the upgrade, so there will be no downtime. But if you are such a good sysadmin this means that you will invest a portion of every day into planning Arch Linux updates, while with Debian you will literally invest zero time into this.

So from the example above you can understand how Debian brings a lot higher value in revenue (yes, money).

I have personally had a situation where Arch Linux has replaced SDL2 with SDL3 and Kdenlive no longer worked after that so I couldn’t make my video that day. I know what you are going to say: Why didn’t you install a Flatpak instead? Well, I actually did do that and this was a good workaround for the problem that was not solved in Arch Linux for the following couple of months… But flatpak usually comes from Flathub. And Flathub is, let’s be real, an entirely different distribution. Flathub is not Arch Linux, so why would you use an unreliable GNU/Linux distribution and mix it with Flathub distribution in order to make it more reliable? Why not use a reliable distribution in the first place?

If this video and post resonated with you, share it with someone who is distrohopping too much.

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://linuxrenaissance.com/post/debian-is-stable/

Rootlexx · June 20, 2026, 1:51pm

Debian strives to provide both definitions of “stable”: stable as doesn’t crash, and stable as a platform.

nevy96 · June 20, 2026, 7:25pm

My first post on the forum! ^^

For me the definition of “stable” is a little bit different.
In this context in my head stable means “outdated”. And not in security context outdated, more like feature-oriented outdated. I am using my PC mostly for gaming, I need the freshest drivers, newest proton, newest bugfixes, HDR, Wayland etc.
If I would use a “stable” disto, say Debian, and try to backport everything I need, I would for sure spend much more time, than fixing the eventual problems of Arch (CachyOS), which delivers the cutting edge all of the box. So it is all about the use case I guess. That is the beauty and also difficulty of Linux and the reason why the adoption is not so easy.

TommyViper · June 20, 2026, 11:30pm

Welcome to the Linux Renaissance forum!

I would agree pretty much with what you say. Debian is great for office work and light gaming, but Arch/Fedora are definitely reserved for those intense, heavy gamers that benefit from newer and more optimized code and drivers.

nevy96 · June 21, 2026, 1:22am

Hello hello! ^^ Very nice, that we have a forum now!

I thought about this topic even more!

The perspective changes a little bit, when we talk about usual Windows user, that jumped on Linux train and tried to use Linux for gaming + some productivity (work, study). If we keep saying, that Debian is THE “stable” distro and it checks all of the boxes for Gaming, they will go with their newest 9800X3D / 9070 XT / insert any newest tech stuffs people put in their PCs and fail miserably with Debian, because it will not even boot. (I am looking at you GParted Live CD based on Debian).

But if we steer them towards something like Fedora - it will have enough “edge” to handle the newest stuff and support whatever newest games/hardware come in on the market, but enough “stability” to not potentially crash out with every update. It would be much safer option to recommend to an average person starting out their Linux journey.

I tried gaming on Debian or using it for music production - for me it failed miserably with things, that Fedora had out of the box. And I consider myself having Linux knowledge and I use it as my main driver since 2-3 years already.

So in the discussion about “dangers” of rolling distros or the edgy stuff and “stability” of Debian, we have to always mention the context and usecases, so we don’t hurt those not so tech-savy wanting something simple that works.

Bleep bloop now I said what I wanted to say

darth · June 21, 2026, 7:02am

I can’t speak for very latest Radeon GPU’s in Debian because I did not personally get such experience. I am sure I would need a backported kernel to get the most out of it. What I did have was Radeon 6800XT which worked amazing in Debian 12 with no need for updates. The only thing that mattered for gaming, with that GPU, was latest Proton which automatically updates with Steam.

Now I have Nvidia GPU and this is even easier. I don’t need latest kernel, I don’t need Mesa. Debian provides me with everything I need to get the most out of my GPU because … well, Nvidia driver package is what provides me with GPU updates, not Debian repository.

There are certainly some nuances here and I can see how having the very latest hardware could easily result in needing backported kernel until next Debian comes out.

Rootlexx · June 21, 2026, 9:25am

GParted Live ISO is based on Debian unstable, which means that it didn’t boot for some other reason as it contains fresh enough mesa and kernel.

Then, 90 series cards work OOTB in Debian 13, although it is recommended to switch to backports kernel and mesa for better performance.

Having said that,

I don’t consider Debian a good choice for absolute Linux beginners. It requires intermediate Linux knowledge and therefore won’t fit everyone.

But Fedora is not that good in that regard either: for example, multimedia codecs need a 3rd-party repository and terminal commands. Linux Mint, for example, has this covered in a lot more accessible way.

nevy96 · June 21, 2026, 11:08am

I might have been a little bit misleading as well, because this situation happened around 1,5 year ago and I didn’t disclose that Now I am pretty sure they would’ve caught up, so you are absolutely right.

True, Fedora has some quirks and also some packages are not so easily available without tinkerink, whereas on Debian/Ubuntu family it is provided in apt.
Mint is a solid one for beginners. We installed it on my boyfriend’s dad old laptop to salvage it from dying with Windows 10 → Windows 11 mandatory hardware upgrade bullshit, and he’s happy to this day with it

bretbernhoft · June 26, 2026, 1:52am

I have been a full-time fan of Debian for 2-3 years at this point. My primary computers run Linux Mint, being more specific.

To have such a stable and well-supported chain of high-performing Linux distributions is truly life-changing.

Debian to Ubuntu to Linux Mint. At least for me.

TommyViper · July 8, 2026, 11:37pm

I finally had a moment like Darth, a package on Arch was updated and broke compatibility with Kdenlive. I can’t remember now what it was called, but it is documented on the KDE forum. I was able to downgrade from that newest version of said package to the previous version and that worked and Kdenlive started working again. However, I said…this is unacceptable to me. While this was a minor fix, it made me realize that my computer might not always work with Arch being installed on it. While I bounced between Fedora and Arch a bit…I believe Fedora is going to be my new permanent home. While it’s got a lot of the latest or later packages, it is my hope that it will be more reliable than Arch. I really don’t want to have to worry about fixing my computers over weird dependency issues. This has been probably the first time getting bit by Arch’s bleeding edge, but most likely staying on it wouldn’t be the last time.

So since while it isn’t Debian…I’m probably going to be leaving Arch behind now for the indefinite future. I need my computer to work, but the absolutely newest things aren’t always the most important to me. As I mentioned before, if KDE was a bit newer on Debian, I wouldn’t be against daily driving it. But because it won’t be updated again for probably another year give or take, it’s just too old for me to really want to daily it on everything. But once Forky is released, I just might revisit it. That’s not out of the realm of possibility.

darth · July 9, 2026, 3:04pm

I must add to your FOMO that I also want to have a higher version number in KDE. This has been one of the biggest pain points in Debian for me. But as time goes by I have managed to practice some meditation to shield myself against FOMO because if it ain’t broken then it doesn’t need fixing. And KDE 6.3 ain’t broken.