honestly, i do get the appeal of btrfs, which is why i wanted to try it out one more time. but i feel i can’t trust it if it is really that fault intolerant. ext4 might not have as many features as btrfs, but it is more lenient and more predictable

(also, recovering from update failures should be the job of the package system imo)

i still prefer plasma over gnome, but my sorta controversial opinion on the matter is that gnome 3 was way better than gnome 2. gnome 2 was boring, ugly, using it felt like a chore and frankly not much simpler than kde at the time. gnome 3 tried to create something new and unique and i have huge respect of them for that. it was also much, much more pleasant to use than its predecessor. but it still isn’t better than plasma. the only time in my opinion that gnome was a preferable option to kde was during the early kde 4 dark ages, which was a necessary transition, but it was terrible regardless

tl;dr gnome >=3 still isn’t better than plasma, but it was a step in the right direction bc gnome 2 was way worse

as i said, maybe that’s the ideal for industrial/business applications (e.g. servers, remote storage) where the cost of replacing disks due to failure is already accounted for and the company has a process ready and pristine data integrity is of utmost importance, but for home use, reliability of the hardware you do have right now is more important than perfect data integrity, because i want to be as confident as possible that my system is going to boot up next time i turn it on. in my experience, i’ve never had any major data loss in ext4 due to hardware malfunction. also, most files on a filesystem are replaceable anyway (especially the system files), so it makes even less sense to install your system on a btrfs drive from that perspective.

what you’re saying me is basically “btrfs should never be advised for home use”

guidelines are for the sheeple

gobolinux

it’s main feature is that it completely redefines the system’s root directory structure. the only reason i even know it exists is because i’m friends with one of the creators

what i mean by production is “not randomly breaking because it’s feature freeze time and now i have to reinstall everything”. i assure you it’s not a high bar

sorry if i sound a little annoying about this, it’s just that i’ve seen so many people recommending debian testing as if it’s just a different flavor of debian for people who want a more up-to-date system and are willing to deal with a little instability, but it is not that. debian testing is made exclusively for testing debian. it is not made for daily driving. i’ve had so many issues with debian systems in my lab which i later found out were caused by someone “upgrading” the system to testing bc they heard debian testing is the daily driving version and debian stable is just for servers that need 99.9% uptime

honestly, you’d be better off using sid rather than testing, since it’s rolling release

as for gimp, they can just use pinning to upgrade gimp exclusively. they can also use backports. no need to upgrade the whole system

never run debian testing for production use

never run debian testing for production use

debian testing is not fit for production use