Congratulations to everyone involved in ironing the last few bugs out.
(My own involvement had been a bit limited recently, but I at least kept my few remaining packages in a ready-to-release state and helped with the occasional bug report and patch.)
Some people think that Ubuntu is the better Debian - I do NOT. Debian is a fun place, has great people working on it and is true to its aims at creating a truly free and high-quality distribution. The long release cycles of Debian are a feature, not a bug. Stable is for production systems, not toy projects.
The proper way of attributing Debian stable is conservative and sustainable, but not outdated. It actually can do everything you need - and will do so in 10 years.
If you have been using Open Source for as long as me (say 15+ years) you will probably have seen software hypes come and go. The one thing that has been always the same was Debian: dead reliable. There was a time when everyone was crazy about enlightement for it’s shiny pretty UI. Almost like Compiz-Beryl just two years ago. It came, as a matter of fact Debian also had it, but it also went.
I also remember how people complained that Debian didn’t ship Xgl back in 2006 when this was the latest hype (there was no Debian release in 2006). Well, Xgl died in 2008. The features remained, but done in a much nicer way, and also found their way into Debian. In fact, I also ran Xgl at least once, on Debian, but just not on “stable”. One could say that Xgl never was quite “stable”, was it?
Debian stable is good the way it is: an administrators choice. Of course, developers might have different needs, but there also is testing, unstable and experimental. Just make sure to align your choice with your needs. And sometimes, also rethink your needs: there is no “latest beta versions” and “stable platform” at the same time.