Ok, I understand what you meant, thanks.

Basically, after I’ve read all of that, it’s clear as day that security is not a priority on Testing. And while band-aid solutions do exist, it’s simply not designed to be secure.

Yeah, I wouldn’t run it in a production environment.

Sure, but even in those “few cases” Testing will get them soon.

I did read at some point that Testing may receive security updates later than stable, might be in those cases in which backports come straight from unstable.

I don’t recommend going for (Debian’s/Devuan’s) testing (branch) as it targets a peculiar niche that I fail to understand; e.g. it doesn’t receive the security backports like Stable does nor does it receive them as soon as Unstable/Sid does. Unstable/Sid could work, but I would definitely setup (GRUB-)Btrfs + Timeshift/Snapper to retain my sanity.

From https://backports.debian.org/ :

Backports are packages taken from the next Debian release (called “testing”), adjusted and recompiled for usage on Debian stable

So by definition, security backports in stable are present in Testing in the form of regular packages, right?

New to Linux: in which case would you stick with an “old-old-stable” release?

Software incompatibility?

I don’t know if we’re discussing semantics. A performance score is attributed, and before the fix their scores were all 166. It doesn’t work, as you said. So the consequence is the preferred core being “random”, isn’t it?

Apparently there’s a bug in an AMD’s driver. It was supposed to assign processes based on each core’s self reported performance, but because of the bug it was random.

This “self reported performance” is based on evaluation done to the cores in the fab process, by AMD. Meaning, due to imperfections some cores are a bit better than others.