rolling release is awesome!!!

hypermegachi · 2006-10-27 13:38:50

i installed ubuntu dapper on the server at work (LTS blah blah blah), and i just realized that upgrading to edgy is A Big Deal (tm).

filoktetes · 2006-10-27 14:29:30

Yes, I get very confused every time I try to install (for what reason I don't know) any of the so called easy distributions. Most tasks that are very straight forward and simple on for-experts-only Arch, are complicated and often nearly impossible to do on them.

1c3d0g · 2006-10-27 22:17:25

That is why I hate the "let's upgrade everything every 6 months" mentality. I mean, why the hell should I wait for new functionality/fixed bugs every 6 months when the software is out *today*? The rolling-release is bliss. Currently I'm just waiting for Arch to hit 0.8 so I can try my hand at it. Xubuntu is nice and all but I simply don't have the patience to wait for them to decide when I can upgrade Firefox/OOo etc.

hypermegachi · 2006-10-27 22:30:25

1c3d0g wrote:

That is why I hate the "let's upgrade everything every 6 months" mentality. I mean, why the hell should I wait for new functionality/fixed bugs every 6 months when the software is out *today*? The rolling-release is bliss. Currently I'm just waiting for Arch to hit 0.8 so I can try my hand at it. Xubuntu is nice and all but I simply don't have the patience to wait for them to decide when I can upgrade Firefox/OOo etc.

in their defense....6 months is a lot better than debian's 3 years

1c3d0g · 2006-10-28 00:25:59

LMAO...you got THAT right, my friend!

neotuli · 2006-10-28 01:41:10

1c3d0g wrote:

That is why I hate the "let's upgrade everything every 6 months" mentality. I mean, why the hell should I wait for new functionality/fixed bugs every 6 months when the software is out *today*? The rolling-release is bliss. Currently I'm just waiting for Arch to hit 0.8 so I can try my hand at it. Xubuntu is nice and all but I simply don't have the patience to wait for them to decide when I can upgrade Firefox/OOo etc.

Did you just say that? Do you realize how oxymoronic what you just said was? Why wait for a release if it's rolling release? 8)

elasticdog · 2006-10-28 01:44:59

neotuli wrote:

1c3d0g wrote:
That is why I hate the "let's upgrade everything every 6 months" mentality. I mean, why the hell should I wait for new functionality/fixed bugs every 6 months when the software is out *today*? The rolling-release is bliss. Currently I'm just waiting for Arch to hit 0.8 so I can try my hand at it. Xubuntu is nice and all but I simply don't have the patience to wait for them to decide when I can upgrade Firefox/OOo etc.
Did you just say that? Do you realize how oxymoronic what you just said was? Why wait for a release if it's rolling release? 8)

Exactly what I was thinking

phrakture · 2006-10-28 01:58:49

I don't think he has arch installed....

byte · 2006-10-28 02:01:17

phrakture wrote:

I don't think he has arch installed....

If that'd be true, I'd consider it A Big Deal (tm).

1c3d0g · 2006-10-28 13:32:05

I don't have Arch installed. :-| And indeed, it *IS* a big deal.

lucke · 2006-10-28 14:31:05

If you're afraid/can't install from 7.2.0 isos (I've heard they could be somewhat problematic), grab one of tpowa's remastered isos. I see no point in waiting for 0.8 release (because of the said rolling release nature, obviously).

dolby · 2006-10-28 17:30:40

tpowa's isos are far more difficult to install than the official iso's imo. and installing arch is not a big deal if u undust all entries in the wiki, at least the ones that u believe that interest u or seem important

Romashka · 2006-10-28 19:35:03

dolby wrote:

tpowa's isos are far more difficult to install than the official iso's imo.

Why? They are just updated for mkinitcpio and udev hardware detection + slightly improved installer + updated packages.

McQueen · 2006-10-28 19:47:27

1c3d0g wrote:

I mean, why the hell should I wait for new functionality/fixed bugs every 6 months when the software is out *today*?

The 'why' on paper is that it may be possible to get increased stability with more vetted package versions, and then fixes for security bugs on any applicable installed software. The execution of this methodology is not always consistent or proven, but I would tend to agree that rolling release environments are generally prone be less stable than their counterparts.

dolby · 2006-10-29 07:39:37

Romashka wrote:

dolby wrote:
tpowa's isos are far more difficult to install than the official iso's imo.
Why? They are just updated for mkinitcpio and udev hardware detection + slightly improved installer + updated packages.

because the layout is nothing like the normal installer iirc. u have to do everything in cli

Lone_Wolf · 2006-10-29 10:07:22

not true, atleast the ftp-iso has an installer that looks very much like a slightly improved version of the installer used on the official isos and is started with the same command ( /arch/setup ).

dolby · 2006-10-30 06:36:22

yeah sorry about that totally wrong. checked out the 5-10 ftp iso earlier and its not in cli.
that kernel edition with udev gives me fatal erorrs when loading tho.
i liked the fact that when u edit settings u can review them again later.
but still when installing via ftp even with the 0.7.2 installation disk u get the uptodate packages. didnt see any difference there.
also the mkinitrd package is still in the pkgs list even tho its useless to install now since none of the iso's contain <2.6.18 kernel

Romashka · 2006-10-30 08:05:53

dolby wrote:

but still when installing via ftp even with the 0.7.2 installation disk u get the uptodate packages. didnt see any difference there.

There is a difference. tpowa's ISOs have better hardware detection and allow to select eth0/eth1 when installing from FTP (IIRC).

chrismortimore · 2006-10-30 09:48:04

McQueen wrote:

The 'why' on paper is that it may be possible to get increased stability with more vetted package versions, and then fixes for security bugs on any applicable installed software. The execution of this methodology is not always consistent or proven, but I would tend to agree that rolling release environments are generally prone be less stable than their counterparts.

Also, by doing releases in this snapshot way means they can guarentee all of the packages will work together nicely and not conflict or give version problems. A prime example of this is the dbus troubles people have been getting recently. On a home user desktop, though, I over look such troubles for the up to date software. For servers, I'm a Debian man myself.

Arch Linux

#1 2006-10-27 13:38:50

rolling release is awesome!!!

#2 2006-10-27 14:29:30

Re: rolling release is awesome!!!

#3 2006-10-27 22:17:25

Re: rolling release is awesome!!!

#4 2006-10-27 22:30:25

Re: rolling release is awesome!!!

#5 2006-10-28 00:25:59

Re: rolling release is awesome!!!

#6 2006-10-28 01:41:10

Re: rolling release is awesome!!!

#7 2006-10-28 01:44:59

Re: rolling release is awesome!!!

#8 2006-10-28 01:58:49

Re: rolling release is awesome!!!

#9 2006-10-28 02:01:17

Re: rolling release is awesome!!!

#10 2006-10-28 13:32:05

Re: rolling release is awesome!!!

#11 2006-10-28 14:31:05

Re: rolling release is awesome!!!

#12 2006-10-28 17:30:40

Re: rolling release is awesome!!!

#13 2006-10-28 19:35:03

Re: rolling release is awesome!!!

#14 2006-10-28 19:47:27

Re: rolling release is awesome!!!

#15 2006-10-29 07:39:37

Re: rolling release is awesome!!!

#16 2006-10-29 10:07:22

Re: rolling release is awesome!!!

#17 2006-10-30 06:36:22

Re: rolling release is awesome!!!

#18 2006-10-30 08:05:53

Re: rolling release is awesome!!!

#19 2006-10-30 09:48:04

Re: rolling release is awesome!!!

Board footer