4 ms·

Not OP, but I value stability over having the latest version. Fedora is fairly bleeding edge compared to other fixed release distributions, but also tested. Fe

Not OP, but I value stability over having the latest version. Fedora is fairly bleeding edge compared to other fixed release distributions, but also tested. Fedora is also easier to install. The older I get, the less hassle I want.

dmix 9y ago
I had a similar view towards Linux at first, preferring Fedora to ArchLinux for stability. But after switching back to Arch and sticking with it I've learned stability is a matter of software choice and experience with Linux, it's not necessarily more or less stable at the OS/package manager level. Using AUR/user-style packages or non-mainline packages (beta, unstable) is always a risk in whatever distro you use and stable packages in Arch are as stable as elsewhere... depending on the type of software you choose. The power of ArchLinux makes the learning curve worth it IMO. Plus the minimalism of the base system is a good way to become intimately familiar with Linux. The other major factor is what laptop you are using. Since switching to a Thinkpad (or Dell XPS) which has good hardware support in Linux I've had zero problems at the graphics/network/external monitor level which is typical source of issues with new distro releases.
- fhood 9y ago
  I cannot disagree more. 90% of the most obnoxious issues I deal with on linux are related to nasty driver incompatibilities, and you will not convince me that I should have had more experience with linux. I want my drivers to work on install. I shouldn't need a second computer and a usb drive to get my system working.
  - dmix 9y ago
    ... which is why I noted the importance of using well-supported hardware, ie Thinkpad or Dell XPS which are both very well documented in the ArchLinux wiki and well supported by the community with drivers. This solved a big chunk of the issues I was experiencing. I've found the people who attack Linux for lack of graphics/network driver support are people who haven't used it in recent years. This was a far bigger problem in the past than it is today. But if you're planning to use Linux for your desktop, with the latest software, not 2yr old distros, it's essential to purchase a laptop with Linux in mind. Much like how MacOS is limited to particular hardware, it's good to view Linux for desktop similarly.
    - fhood 9y ago
      Fair enough, I mostly meant that certain distros are more likely to support your hardware out of the box.
- stinkytaco 9y ago
  I have had Arch break on numerous occasions. This is especially true if I am compiling things from scratch frequently. I've had Fedora break as well, but less so and generally it's easier to find my way out since I can refer back to the release notes. I haven't really found anything I'd want to do that I couldn't do in Fedora. It's well documented, it's close to upstream, it's got a large community and it's linux. I don't feel I have any less power from using Fedora than from using Arch. Other than the rolling release and installation process, there's not much to separate them in day to day use.

dmix 9y ago

I had a similar view towards Linux at first, preferring Fedora to ArchLinux for stability. But after switching back to Arch and sticking with it I've learned stability is a matter of software choice and experience with Linux, it's not necessarily more or less stable at the OS/package manager level. Using AUR/user-style packages or non-mainline packages (beta, unstable) is always a risk in whatever distro you use and stable packages in Arch are as stable as elsewhere... depending on the type of software you choose. The power of ArchLinux makes the learning curve worth it IMO. Plus the minimalism of the base system is a good way to become intimately familiar with Linux. The other major factor is what laptop you are using. Since switching to a Thinkpad (or Dell XPS) which has good hardware support in Linux I've had zero problems at the graphics/network/external monitor level which is typical source of issues with new distro releases.

fhood 9y ago
I cannot disagree more. 90% of the most obnoxious issues I deal with on linux are related to nasty driver incompatibilities, and you will not convince me that I should have had more experience with linux. I want my drivers to work on install. I shouldn't need a second computer and a usb drive to get my system working.
- dmix 9y ago
  ... which is why I noted the importance of using well-supported hardware, ie Thinkpad or Dell XPS which are both very well documented in the ArchLinux wiki and well supported by the community with drivers. This solved a big chunk of the issues I was experiencing. I've found the people who attack Linux for lack of graphics/network driver support are people who haven't used it in recent years. This was a far bigger problem in the past than it is today. But if you're planning to use Linux for your desktop, with the latest software, not 2yr old distros, it's essential to purchase a laptop with Linux in mind. Much like how MacOS is limited to particular hardware, it's good to view Linux for desktop similarly.
  - fhood 9y ago
    Fair enough, I mostly meant that certain distros are more likely to support your hardware out of the box.
stinkytaco 9y ago
I have had Arch break on numerous occasions. This is especially true if I am compiling things from scratch frequently. I've had Fedora break as well, but less so and generally it's easier to find my way out since I can refer back to the release notes. I haven't really found anything I'd want to do that I couldn't do in Fedora. It's well documented, it's close to upstream, it's got a large community and it's linux. I don't feel I have any less power from using Fedora than from using Arch. Other than the rolling release and installation process, there's not much to separate them in day to day use.