Off the bleeding edge

thiagowfx · 2015-01-02 22:30:51

If you want to be off the bleeding edge, just go with debian. It is the most stable distro I've ever seen. Usually the problem is that its packages get way [too] old, because its update process is slow, really slow. What looks okay and reasonable if you want stability and no bleeding edge, right?

Also, from my experience, openSUSE is also reasonably stable for a desktop distro, as long as you don't use its Tumbleweed repo.

Last edited by thiagowfx (2015-01-02 22:31:30)

Leonid.I · 2015-01-03 23:29:54

FWIW, arch with only [core] and [extra] has always been stable in my experience. The problem with openSUSE (at least last time I checked) is strange packaging practice with a single repo per project (e.g. texlive). Debian... it's just too wierd.

Alad · 2015-01-04 03:40:26

Debian... it's just too wierd.

This. The more you look into it, the weirder it gets.

nstgc · 2015-01-04 16:45:42

I actually jumped from Ubuntu/Mint to Arch because I was looking for a less buggy experience. I've had a hell of a lot of problems getting things set up, but for the most part Arch has been more stable. I had one instance of breakage with Antergos, but that was before I really new what the hell I was doing (BTY I've been using Arch since June). Since then I mostly have issues getting things to work.

[edit] You may want to consider CentOS or SuSE. CentOS is essentially RHEL and very stable. SuSE, I don't know, but I've heard good things (in general).

Last edited by nstgc (2015-01-04 17:28:20)

Steef435 · 2015-01-04 18:42:56

If you're not planning to use an Ubuntu spin or one of its derivatives (like Elementary OS or Mint), I'd also advise #! (CrunchBang). I've never used it a lot myself, but I know someone who has been running it happily for quite some time now and its community seems pretty nice too.

It's common knowledge that Fedora is some sort of playground for Red Hat. I haven't had any trouble with it during the time I worked with it, and I know someone who uses it now who hasn't run into any trouble yet either. And she was running the 21 beta until release. As far as I know it's the only main Gnome distro out there, so if Gnome interests you I would recommend it. Note that Fedora only supports free software in its repositories, you'd have to get software like the flashplugin from third-party repositories.

I haven't used openSUSE much, so I can't comment on that one.

I wouldn't advise using Ubuntu at the moment, but I've used Xubuntu (Xfce spin) for quite some time and it was a smooth experience.

Have fun distro hopping!

zcal · 2015-01-04 21:47:12

I came to Arch from Debian about three years ago. Prior to that, I had alternately run Debian stable and testing for five years. Ubuntu for two years before that. I did enjoy Debian's stability and hands-off nature once I had it set up the way I wanted, but a few frustrations ultimately drove me away.

Reinstalling / hugely upgrading every few years can be a real pain.
Usefulness of documentation is questionable. I found it to be too robust in some cases too sparse in others.
The community feels less accessible.

I don't mean to knock Debian - it's a superb distro and the one I would probably go back to if not for Arch - but the straightforward nature of Arch's wiki, community channels, and unofficial packages were game changers for me. I guess the thing to think about in your case is how you want your frustrations served up. The bleeding edge will pepper you with them, but (in Arch's case) you're more likely to have a community actively experiencing the same thing as you and more likely to offer timely support. Stability will dump them on you all at once when it's time to upgrade, and it might be more difficult to pinpoint root causes amidst all the changes.

nomorewindows · 2015-01-04 22:35:20

zcal wrote:

it might be more difficult to pinpoint root causes amidst all the changes.

Was a pun intended? If you use debian alot, are considered debianAIRE?

zcal · 2015-01-05 19:42:45

nomorewindows wrote:

Was a pun intended?

Not at all. I must be thick or something because I'm not seeing it.

nomorewindows · 2015-01-05 20:21:57

zcal wrote:

nomorewindows wrote:
Was a pun intended?
Not at all. I must be thick or something because I'm not seeing it.

Is it root causes as in what causes it, or as root causes as in it's root user that caused it?

Awebb · 2015-01-05 21:02:59

Root cause is common lingo for victims users of ticket interfaces. It is usually something you need to work your way through in order to satisfy non-technical QM people, who feel a need to categorize everything senselessly.

Pank · 2015-01-05 21:52:51

For what it is worths, Fedora has been very stable for me (but so has Arch). Upgrading from 20 to 21 was painless. It recommend Fedora to people who can't be bothered dealing with something like Arch.

zcal · 2015-01-06 15:25:52

nomorewindows wrote:

Is it root causes as in what causes it, or as root causes as in it's root user that caused it?

Of course.

Awebb wrote:

Root cause is common lingo for victims users of ticket interfaces. It is usually something you need to work your way through in order to satisfy non-technical QM people, who feel a need to categorize everything senselessly.

It's also a vital part of process improvement in lean manufacturing, which is where my mind often goes...

draugur · 2015-01-09 11:21:46

Leonid.I wrote:

FWIW, arch with only [core] and [extra] has always been stable in my experience. The problem with openSUSE (at least last time I checked) is strange packaging practice with a single repo per project (e.g. texlive). Debian... it's just too wierd.

I have been playing with a build of Jessie/KDE, I really like it so far. I do get the point about it being weird, (especially its package system) , but I would say that has more to do with my familiarity with Arch and lack of experience with Debian.

thiagowfx · 2015-01-09 22:11:01

draugur wrote:

I do get the point about it being weird, (especially its package system) , but I would say that has more to do with my familiarity with Arch and lack of experience with Debian.

You should try out pacapt

draugur · 2015-01-10 23:22:43

thiagowfx wrote:

draugur wrote:
I do get the point about it being weird, (especially its package system) , but I would say that has more to do with my familiarity with Arch and lack of experience with Debian.
You should try out pacapt

Thanks for the link, very interesting.

great_thanatos · 2015-01-19 09:35:16

Debian to Arch convert here. I've used Arch in the past for at least 6 months.

Pros of Debian:
+stable is the most stable system I've ever used (testing is often a better compromise between stability and current software)
+nowhere near as the arch wiki, but usually very good documentation

Things that might turn off Arch users:
-community (lots of elitism, newbie bashing, license berating; usually not from the really experienced crowd, but from self-proclaimed "veterans" that managed to install Awesome and read a few man pages)
systemd has scared away a lot of those, so the future might be a bit better
-configuration isn't as lean and simplified (software broken into several packages, various config files where one would be perfectly fine)

Getting more recent software is also straightforward for a number of things (backports for kernel, xorg, libreoffice, firefox), but don't expect something like the AUR.

Ubuntu LTS with the PPA system added is also quite stable, especially if you stick to Xubuntu or some other variant that doesn't change often.

Psykorgasm · 2015-01-19 09:59:53

Pank wrote:

For what it is worths, Fedora has been very stable for me (but so has Arch). Upgrading from 20 to 21 was painless. It recommend Fedora to people who can't be bothered dealing with something like Arch.

+1 To that.
I've been using Fedora since mid 2008 and have ~350 machines running it at the (albeit fairly small) college I work at without issues the past 3 years. The only time I have occasional regressions is on my home machine running updates-testing, the point here being to test updates and make sure nothing bad gets through

thearcherblog · 2015-01-19 11:26:05

We run CentOS 6 at work for the most of servers and is a really big company and I must say that is the most stable linux I've ever tested.

Of course, is not bleeding edge at all, no latest packages or anything like that but if you want stability... is a rock... at least that is my opinion.

Does it mean that Arch is not stable? Of course not, but there is an small price to pay for using the latest software.

About Debian... don't know it really so I can not give my opinion.

CentOS 6 is still out of systemd but... I like systemd Anyway, moving the whole company to CentOS 7 that has systemd will take loooong time.

Regards,

TheArcher

GSF1200S · 2015-01-27 08:58:21

Another option that might be acceptable to the OP in a few years is simply using btrfs with Arch. Since switching to btrfs, Arch updates have been painless. If an update breaks something (only happened twice in the last 2 years for me), I simply reboot and select my "Arch Linux Preupgrade Snapshot" from Grub- its literally like I havent upgraded.

Then, you can chroot into your "rootfs" snapshot and try to fix it, delete the "rootfs" snapshot and snapshot the preupgrade snapshot as the new rootfs, etc. Its like having Windows system restore only it works every time and its instant. You can also setup a systemd timer to run a bash script that takes snapshots- I have 3 weeklies and a preupgrade all bootable from Grub.

Now of course btrfs itself isnt considered stable, but Ive been using it awhile without any issues.

If looking for another distro, I would prolly go with the Debian Testing release (not Testing in sources.list, but the actual release name) for a desktop and the Debian stable release for a server. Testing will roll until the freeze, but Ive had good luck with both. Ubuntu LTS is good if using Xubuntu, especially if you get in right as its released- 5 years of updates. Crunchbang is also a great option if you like Openbox. Lotta good options out there if rolling release gets old

Last edited by GSF1200S (2015-01-27 09:02:21)

Alad · 2015-01-27 09:26:06

Debian Testing

The problem with Debian testing/sid is that they're not intended as rolling release. As a consequence, you'll get constant package conflicts and other breakage, so you're worse off than Arch. Though with jessie now frozen, things may be less bleak.

Last edited by Alad (2015-01-27 09:27:28)

clfarron4 · 2015-01-27 11:40:32

GSF1200S wrote:

Another option that might be acceptable to the OP in a few years is simply using btrfs with Arch. Since switching to btrfs, Arch updates have been painless. If an update breaks something (only happened twice in the last 2 years for me), I simply reboot and select my "Arch Linux Preupgrade Snapshot" from Grub- its literally like I havent upgraded.

I also believe there have been some threads on the BBS as recently as the latter half of last year saying that if you're running BTRFS, you should be prepared for breakage and always keep a backup of your data. ~~I'll need to read said threads again, just to make sure I'm not spouting BS.~~

EDIT: From this thread:

graysky wrote:

Best advice I can offer is not to use btrfs without a robust backup scheme.

Last edited by clfarron4 (2015-01-27 11:43:48)

ANOKNUSA · 2015-01-27 14:47:59

I certainly wouldn't use BTRFS in a vital production environment (like an enterprise server), but I've been using it problem-free on one of my systems for a couple years now. In any case, if BTRFS craps out on you and you don't have a backup, BTRFS is not to blame for your ensuing problems. I've yet to find anyone calling in a deadline who takes "My filesystem failed!" as an excuse in an age when we can make near-infinite copies of everything.

Last edited by ANOKNUSA (2015-01-27 14:48:29)

nomorewindows · 2015-01-27 15:49:21

ANOKNUSA wrote:

I certainly wouldn't use BTRFS in a vital production environment (like an enterprise server), but I've been using it problem-free on one of my systems for a couple years now. In any case, if BTRFS craps out on you and you don't have a backup, BTRFS is not to blame for your ensuing problems. I've yet to find anyone calling in a deadline who takes "My filesystem failed!" as an excuse in an age when we can make near-infinite copies of everything.

My filesystem ate my homework!

GSF1200S · 2015-01-27 22:43:57

Alad wrote:

Debian Testing
The problem with Debian testing/sid is that they're not intended as rolling release. As a consequence, you'll get constant package conflicts and other breakage, so you're worse off than Arch. Though with jessie now frozen, things may be less bleak.

This is true I suppose. I used Debian Testing for about 2 years without any issues. In that time, Arch had 2 hangups that were patched on Debian before they dropped from Sid. That said, I have had other issues with Debian Testing which werent "system stoppers" but annoyances, and generally had more of these than on Arch.

clfarron4 wrote:

GSF1200S wrote:
Another option that might be acceptable to the OP in a few years is simply using btrfs with Arch. Since switching to btrfs, Arch updates have been painless. If an update breaks something (only happened twice in the last 2 years for me), I simply reboot and select my "Arch Linux Preupgrade Snapshot" from Grub- its literally like I havent upgraded.
I also believe there have been some threads on the BBS as recently as the latter half of last year saying that if you're running BTRFS, you should be prepared for breakage and always keep a backup of your data. ~~I'll need to read said threads again, just to make sure I'm not spouting BS.~~
EDIT: From this thread:
graysky wrote:
Best advice I can offer is not to use btrfs without a robust backup scheme.

No thats true, and I did mention the OP might want to wait a few years before taking such a leap. He didnt mention WHEN he was going to switch, so I figured Id mention it. I dont think BTRFS is as unstable as everyone might imagine- mine has survived power failures, dirty shutoffs, tons of snapshots, a slew of updates and filesystem usage, etc. That said, yeah its not EXT4 or XFS. I wouldnt use it in a production environment.

ANOKNUSA wrote:

I certainly wouldn't use BTRFS in a vital production environment (like an enterprise server), but I've been using it problem-free on one of my systems for a couple years now. In any case, if BTRFS craps out on you and you don't have a backup, BTRFS is not to blame for your ensuing problems. I've yet to find anyone calling in a deadline who takes "My filesystem failed!" as an excuse in an age when we can make near-infinite copies of everything.

Yeah, non-production environment and with backups, BTRFS offers some good stuff. If the f/s does crap out, restore backups. If Arch craps out, boot preupgrade snapshot. This is sort of my mentality now, though again I wouldnt use it in an enterprise environment.

Wilco · 2015-03-17 21:20:30

If you're ok with using desktop software that's a few years behind mainstream you could go for Debian. Although it's dated as hell, it has one of the most reliable update systems. Replace "pacman -Syu" with "apt-get update" and "pacman -Ss" with something like "apt-cache search" and you're good to go.

Arch Linux

#26 2015-01-02 22:30:51

Re: Off the bleeding edge

#27 2015-01-03 23:29:54

Re: Off the bleeding edge

#28 2015-01-04 03:40:26

Re: Off the bleeding edge

#29 2015-01-04 16:45:42

Re: Off the bleeding edge

#30 2015-01-04 18:42:56

Re: Off the bleeding edge

#31 2015-01-04 21:47:12

Re: Off the bleeding edge

#32 2015-01-04 22:35:20

Re: Off the bleeding edge

#33 2015-01-05 19:42:45

Re: Off the bleeding edge

#34 2015-01-05 20:21:57

Re: Off the bleeding edge

#35 2015-01-05 21:02:59

Re: Off the bleeding edge

#36 2015-01-05 21:52:51

Re: Off the bleeding edge

#37 2015-01-06 15:25:52

Re: Off the bleeding edge

#38 2015-01-09 11:21:46

Re: Off the bleeding edge

#39 2015-01-09 22:11:01

Re: Off the bleeding edge

#40 2015-01-10 23:22:43

Re: Off the bleeding edge

#41 2015-01-19 09:35:16

Re: Off the bleeding edge

#42 2015-01-19 09:59:53

Re: Off the bleeding edge

#43 2015-01-19 11:26:05

Re: Off the bleeding edge

#44 2015-01-27 08:58:21

Re: Off the bleeding edge

#45 2015-01-27 09:26:06

Re: Off the bleeding edge

#46 2015-01-27 11:40:32

Re: Off the bleeding edge

#47 2015-01-27 14:47:59

Re: Off the bleeding edge

#48 2015-01-27 15:49:21

Re: Off the bleeding edge

#49 2015-01-27 22:43:57

Re: Off the bleeding edge

#50 2015-03-17 21:20:30

Re: Off the bleeding edge

Board footer