Off the bleeding edge

sitquietly · 2015-03-19 18:24:16

dtw wrote:

Thanks for your responses so far everyone.
.....Debian almost seems like the only choice. I’d be interested to hear from anyone else who’s moved to Arch from Debian or runs it on other systems.

I tired of maintaining Arch for my wife's computer and switched it to Debian Stable -- and darn if it didn't give me problems. I tried CentOS 7 there and it was really beautiful, reliable. But wanting updated software for a few things, and having switched my workstation and file server to Funtoo, I switched my wife to Funtoo Current and it seems to be the sweet spot, e.g. I am able to stick to stable versions of the kernel and whole categories (such as kde-base and kde-extra). I can update without affecting the kernel. I can build a simpler KDE or Gnome configuration than is standard in the pre-built distros. Quality control in the packaging is good and the support is top rate (Daniel Robbins is in charge).

CentOS may be a very happy choice for you, but try Funtoo Linux if you want an exercise in brain plasticity.

Alad · 2015-03-20 17:47:20

The CentOS 7 minimal ISOs might be ok, the full install.. eh.

Anyway I doubt OP is still interested, but +1 for Funtoo.

LysanderAkili · 2015-04-05 22:45:46

What about slackware?

Dead stable, and has slackbuild for latest update. I was going for this route but I decided go back to Arch after a year of using #!. Crunchbang was the perfect distro to go to but too bad the dev decided to leave.

thiagowfx · 2015-04-05 23:17:48

I also recommend Funtoo, it is very nice.

What about slackware? [2]

Is it actively maintained nowadays? What about its community size? This is the only "distroland"/family that I never touched (along the most popular ones).

Alad · 2015-04-06 00:34:24

thiagowfx wrote:

I also recommend Funtoo, it is very nice.
What about slackware? [2]
Is it actively maintained nowadays? What about its community size? This is the only "distroland"/family that I never touched (along the most popular ones).

Intro: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Ar … #Slackware

It's still active, see e.g http://alien.slackbook.org/blog/kde-5_1 … e-current/ and http://www.slackware.com/lists/archive/ … ity&y=2015

Community (and developer) size is smaller than Arch's, there's LQ and ##slackware with ~300 users. Package updates in slackware-current (beyond security) are done on request.

In technical terms, Slackware never followed up to modern "standards". There's no dependency resolution, pkgtools wrap tar, building is done as root, init is BSD rc. Scripts are well-commented but some may cringe at the code. Typically if you want something more advanced (or sane, depending how you look at it) you're on your own, or see for derivates like Salix.

Slackbuilds are like the AUR but not. They are vetted for build errors, but for runtime errors you're again (in my experience) on your own.

All in all, Slackware is worth trying in my view, despite the limits.

Last edited by Alad (2015-04-06 00:53:30)

AnonFriendly · 2015-04-06 23:20:04

LysanderAkili wrote:

What about slackware?
Dead stable, and has slackbuild for latest update. I was going for this route but I decided go back to Arch after a year of using #!. Crunchbang was the perfect distro to go to but too bad the dev decided to leave.

Right? I still miss it. Some of the guys are working on Bussen Labs, the successor. I dont know how far they are. I'm kindof comfortable with arch now though

thiagowfx · 2015-04-07 02:28:59

@Alad

Thanks for your summing up, it is very clear (way more than I would expect from an answer in this topic). This could be even added to the Wiki (to the same article you pointed out).

But, reading your description, I think I'm happier with Arch.

Last edited by thiagowfx (2015-04-07 02:29:37)

Frnco · 2015-04-08 19:55:51

I use Linux for about 14 years now. I used (For work/studying/everyday use) Slackware, Debian, Knoppix, #! (CrunchBang), Ubuntu, Mint, Bridge, Manjaro, ArchBang, Arch and others, especially a Brazillian Distro called Kurumin, based on Knoppix. I maintain/ed production servers on CentOS, Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora and Arch. And I'm probably forgetting something here.

Every distro will break. If it's "easier to use", it breaks on updates. Worse breakages than Arch, mind. If it's "stabler" (As in "more stable"), like Wheezy or CentOS, it won't break, but you will break it because official repositories don't cut it. Try creating a VPS that you think is stable and then deploying some bleeding edge software on it and you'll get it. Dependencies and versions and you are compiling everything from source. Then developers patch their code because they keep their Macs and Arches and Ubuntus updated, and you gotta find out version changes and recompile everything and... Everything is a broken mess. Deploy Arch and it just works, worst-case-scenario actually is installing a couple things from AUR (Avoid Git repos like the plague though, they are the worst offender imho).

You wanna try it, just one suggestion: Keep your data(Home folder or whatever you like) in a separate partition and be ready to reinstall at any time. You will have issues, you will get what I mean, and you will probably go back to Arch. If you gotta reinstall anyways at least you use a better system and reinstalls are way less often.

And if you are invested in it you will think you should just try and do things properly and configure your distro well and the problem will be gone... It's not rolling release. When you do a full system upgrade or a reinstall it will come back to haunt you. I am still a big fan of Debian and apt-get way of doing things, but in my opinion Debian is for people who manage a single server with legacy, mission-critical software, and even then I advise people to keep the system updated, unless you can do with zero updates forever. If you need to be dynamic, there's nothing better than Arch.

On servers, if you update(the server)/code/whatever somewhat regularly, you will sooner or later have some issue with some dependency, and either you won't be able to patch it because stable, or you will but it changed something and all hell will break loose. Better to have Chef/Puppet/Ansible/Salt (I favor Salt) and get a disposable server up (Keep it or up it just to test upgrades). If everything works on it (I back data up to it first), I try to update the "official" server. If the official one breaks I just replace it by the one working. Saved me quite some troubles, especially with CentOS.

Also, fun fact on breakage issues: Hitting a 4-mounth-run with no reinstalls on Ubuntu prompted a colleague to start bragging about how he had this project to never formar/reinstall and he was already on a 4 month streak. Even if I get a new hard drive I don't need to format, and I only had to reinstall Arch one time when a hard drive died. Of course I didn't say it, I just felt sorry for him... So there's that.

Last edited by Frnco (2015-04-08 19:56:11)

Arch Linux

#51 2015-03-19 18:24:16

Re: Off the bleeding edge

#52 2015-03-20 17:47:20

Re: Off the bleeding edge

#53 2015-04-05 22:45:46

Re: Off the bleeding edge

#54 2015-04-05 23:17:48

Re: Off the bleeding edge

#55 2015-04-06 00:34:24

Re: Off the bleeding edge

#56 2015-04-06 23:20:04

Re: Off the bleeding edge

#57 2015-04-07 02:28:59

Re: Off the bleeding edge

#58 2015-04-08 19:55:51

Re: Off the bleeding edge

Board footer