I distro hopped for many years, until I ended up on arch (the rolling distros are kind of a stable end state for linux installs). I will say that the argument that "rolling distros are more unstable", was completely wrong and unfounded. Many updates to things like qt or xorg have broken point distributions, and I've found that an arch install has been more stable than ubuntu in particular.
this post was submitted on 25 Jan 2022
11 points (100.0% liked)
Linux
49469 readers
654 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
True, Arch is a lot more stable than many people give it credit for. In my long time using Arch, I've only ever had dependency problems once. And Ubuntu, especially nowadays, is not the best when it comes to stability. However, I would argue that RHEL/RockyLinux or Debian are generally more stable than Arch.
Rolling distros are unstable by definition - they change regularly. You are confusing (as many do) stability with reliability.
Should You Use A Rolling Or Point Release Distro [...] I can’t decide that for you.
I mean, I did not expect an answer. But such a title is just shit.
Point releases, and only the long term stable ones for servers, rolling for desktops.
Rolling release because security reasons.
Security patches make their way to point release distros as well. You only miss features.
True but usually it takes much longer to get them.
Not all security patches do actually make their way. Some are missed. But also latest releases may have new trivial security bugs (like latest apache httpd).
I've been enjoying rolling releases for several years but I have a long and cordial relationship with point release distros.
For me it comes down to fresh software and personal taste. I like the 'flow' of updates that rolling releases have and prefer dealing with small recurring issues over twice-a-year big upgrades. That being typed, I keep an eye on update news to see what potential problems may arise and I'm comfortable dealing with minor breakages as they occur. I know more about troubleshooting than I did when I was younger, so a bit of instability doesn't ruin my day. Anyhow, a little bit of research is worth my time if it benefits several machines at once.
I still have a few Debian-based machines that I'm keeping as-is due to how difficult initial install was on those particular machines. I don't have time to re-learn how to change them over and I don't want to risk getting stuck partway. While the occasional release upgrades are irritating the scope of the irritation is small. If I were starting over they probably would all be on rolling releases as well, but I don't mind them.
Fedora. Best of both worlds.
NixOS does it even better. You can choose which things to install in a release channel, and which in a rolling channel.
Learning Nix and NixOS was the best investment I've ever made for my computer use since switching to Linux a decade ago or so.
The barrier of entry is so high I don't blame anyone for not making the leap but I wish more people could enjoy the benefits. All other distros bar GuixOS feel utterly archaic and clumsily designed by comparison.
i've tried nix three different times and find the learning curve so incredibly steep that the productivity gains are simply not worth it for my desktop usage. i'm waiting for the space to mature so i can feel better about picking it up.
Totally understandable. One day we may see a graphical installer and configuration manager and that is the day I can start recommending others to try it
the installation process is actually alright, it's moreso the maintenance that i had problems with. the mental model is still foreign to me and when i tried it last flakes were recommended by most forum users but not in the documentation. almost all public repo's made use of flakes and it just confused me :/
The most confusing part of flakes is that it isn't the default, but sort of defacto is because so many use it (myself included). At this point I feel it should be the default. The installation process doesn't use the flakes feature so it has to be worked around and it isn't straight forward.
Nix(OS) has a case of expert user base that aren't motivated enough to make it easier for those unfamiliar with the concepts to get going.
Nix makes more sense if you understand referential transparency and functional programming. Even then, how a lot of nix expressions are written is quite confusing with all the self-recursive overrides, functions that are somehow also sets etc.
The best documentation and tutorials are probably somewhere other than in the official ones (though official documentation is not bad). Nix Pills and the wiki, especially.
i'll be referencing these next time i want to try it out again. thanks!!
Agreed