• corsicanguppy@lemmy.caEnglish
    4·
    7 hours ago

    Whoever equated “stable” with “inactive” is a fucking moron.

    If your stable release can’t handle proper updates over its stable content, then get a better stable distro. There’s a reason why some distro trees are Enterprise and some are “Enterprise”.

    • HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.orgOP
      2·
      2 hours ago

      If your stable release can’t handle proper updates over its stable content, then get a better stable distro.

      It is not necessarily the distro. Apart from NVidia drivers breaking and breaking grub dual boot configurations, I had most problems with GNOME upgrades.

      But the key question is: Is it better to have rare, bigger changes, or frequent, smaller changes? For desktop and development, my experience slightly favours the latter. For servers, I had no problems with the Debian model.

  • HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.orgOP
    3·
    17 hours ago

    Perhaps the sweet spot is “stable rolling release” like SuSE Tumbleweed Slowroll or Void Linux?

    In any case, I am using both Debian and Arch for 15 and 10 years and had a bit less problems with Arch on the Desktop than with Debian.

    I believe the key point is perhaps backwards compatibilty, not freezing system parts; and rolling release systems seem to foster backward compatibility. To underline that: When did you worry the last time that a Linux kernel version bumb would break your system?

    • Attacker94@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      16 hours ago

      I think the best of both worlds, assuming you don’t need rebootless updating, is the distros that act as immutable for any given update set, but allow updates ala rolling release and just cache the previous image. This way you have the newest packages while having an easy recovery method if the update breaks things