5 ms·

> I am loosing more and more confidence that these "package the world and freeze everything in place" distros are the right choice for end users. I'm there wit

> I am loosing more and more confidence that these "package the world and freeze everything in place" distros are the right choice for end users. I'm there with you. I use a rolling distro (Arch) and I update all packages to the latest versions whenever I'm bored. I do this because I can't remember the last time something broke this way. I've been doing that for ~6 years on 3 different machines. On the other hand, a lot of my friends use Ubuntu as their main OS and they constantly have mysterious issues with software, trouble installing stuff (a ton of things require binary-only vendor-run PPAs which then often have out-of-date versions), etc. So I'm wondering, at least for desktop use-cases, what exactly is gained there? I would've thought that freezing all packages and issuing a release would allow a much more rigorous QA process and make the system rock solid. But somehow a huge company (Canonical) cannot make a system that is as stable as orders of magnitude less popular, volunteer-run rolling distribution. Something just doesn't add up to me there. It could be a bias of my sample, or Canonical just not caring much about the desktop experience anymore. (I run a lot of machines on Ubuntu LTS and for the server-side it's pretty good.)

effie 7y ago
Canonical probably does care less than in their desktop golden years, now they are perhaps focusing on the server os market (cloud). The distribution model has the advantage of single click install. Great for basic users, but you run outdated software, sometimes with well known security holes. For power users who can take some work in maintaining their system, it seems to me that your way - keeping up with the latest version of all software - gives you better security.
- mort96 7y ago
  What do you mean? Arch works the same way as Ubuntu; there's a package manager, you use it to install software from the system repositories. `apt-get install vlc` is no easier or more user friendly than `pacman -S vlc`. I imagine gnome-software even works it does in Ubuntu, though I haven't tried using it. The only difference is that Arch updates their repos' packages as soon as a new version is available upstream (after some testing of course), while Ubuntu doesn't.
  - effie 7y ago
    I meant the LTS model such as Ubuntu 18.04 gives you old version software with the possibility of worse functionality and more security holes. Arch may be more up-to-date than Ubuntu, but it isn't in the same category; it is not LTS, and it is not as widespread.
    - mort96 7y ago
      I was mostly responding to the part about how "The distribution model has the advantage of single click install". What's the difference in how "single click" installation can be between rolling and LTS?
      - effie 7y ago
        The point is classic distributions which support their product for a long time (Debian, Ubuntu,RHEL,Centos) are easier to use for basic users you can meet on street. With Arch or Gentoo, you are right that there is a package manager which makes installation of software easier, but the system is not easy to use for BFUs. When problems with installation/upgrades arise (which is more likely for Arch/Gentoo), you are expected to spend some time becoming proficient GNU/Linux user who resolves things in command line.
        Dylan16807 7y ago
        Citation needed on the number of problems, assuming the classic system is actually being updated from release to release so it can continue to receive critical updates.
xorcist 7y ago
> at least for desktop use-cases, what exactly is gained No surprise there. Those aren't really for desktop use. Most "stable" distros users are servers. If you are a desktop user you probably want your new shiny Firefox or LibreOffice as soon as possible, so you run either a six month cadence (Ubuntu, Fedora) or rolling (Debian testing, SuSE Tumbleweed, Gentoo). The latter can have a bit of light breakage for time to time so the six month cadence is probably a better fit for most casual users.
- flukus 7y ago
  > If you are a desktop user you probably want your new shiny Firefox or LibreOffice as soon as possible If you're an enthusiast you want that (and most linux users are probably enthusiasts), but most people just want something to work and remain static and aren't remotely interested in whatever new experiment firefox is unleashing on users.
  - xorcist 7y ago
    As much as I hate to say it, that ship has probably sailed. If you surf the web in 2019 you're likely using javascript and you need an updated web browser. The attack surface on those things are enormous.
ChrisRR 7y ago
I'd agree with you there. I run Arch on my home computer and update fully pretty much every time I use it (because it's so fast to update everything) and I think I've only had 1 breaking change in ~5 years.
rlpb 7y ago
> I run a lot of machines on Ubuntu LTS If you don't like frozen packages, why are you using Ubuntu LTS? Ubuntu provides an updated stable release every six months if you want something closer to rolling. But most Ubuntu users, not even desktop users, use that. The market is speaking, and it wants stable releases frozen for years at a time. It is a contradiction to demand both.
- thegeomaster 7y ago
  I run servers on Ubuntu LTS, my personal machines on Arch. Frozen packages are great for servers but for desktops I just don't see the benefit. Hence my comment.

effie 7y ago

Canonical probably does care less than in their desktop golden years, now they are perhaps focusing on the server os market (cloud). The distribution model has the advantage of single click install. Great for basic users, but you run outdated software, sometimes with well known security holes. For power users who can take some work in maintaining their system, it seems to me that your way - keeping up with the latest version of all software - gives you better security.

mort96 7y ago
What do you mean? Arch works the same way as Ubuntu; there's a package manager, you use it to install software from the system repositories. `apt-get install vlc` is no easier or more user friendly than `pacman -S vlc`. I imagine gnome-software even works it does in Ubuntu, though I haven't tried using it. The only difference is that Arch updates their repos' packages as soon as a new version is available upstream (after some testing of course), while Ubuntu doesn't.
- effie 7y ago
  I meant the LTS model such as Ubuntu 18.04 gives you old version software with the possibility of worse functionality and more security holes. Arch may be more up-to-date than Ubuntu, but it isn't in the same category; it is not LTS, and it is not as widespread.
  - mort96 7y ago
    I was mostly responding to the part about how "The distribution model has the advantage of single click install". What's the difference in how "single click" installation can be between rolling and LTS?
    - effie 7y ago
      The point is classic distributions which support their product for a long time (Debian, Ubuntu,RHEL,Centos) are easier to use for basic users you can meet on street. With Arch or Gentoo, you are right that there is a package manager which makes installation of software easier, but the system is not easy to use for BFUs. When problems with installation/upgrades arise (which is more likely for Arch/Gentoo), you are expected to spend some time becoming proficient GNU/Linux user who resolves things in command line.
      - Dylan16807 7y ago
        Citation needed on the number of problems, assuming the classic system is actually being updated from release to release so it can continue to receive critical updates.

xorcist 7y ago

> at least for desktop use-cases, what exactly is gained No surprise there. Those aren't really for desktop use. Most "stable" distros users are servers. If you are a desktop user you probably want your new shiny Firefox or LibreOffice as soon as possible, so you run either a six month cadence (Ubuntu, Fedora) or rolling (Debian testing, SuSE Tumbleweed, Gentoo). The latter can have a bit of light breakage for time to time so the six month cadence is probably a better fit for most casual users.

flukus 7y ago
> If you are a desktop user you probably want your new shiny Firefox or LibreOffice as soon as possible If you're an enthusiast you want that (and most linux users are probably enthusiasts), but most people just want something to work and remain static and aren't remotely interested in whatever new experiment firefox is unleashing on users.
- xorcist 7y ago
  As much as I hate to say it, that ship has probably sailed. If you surf the web in 2019 you're likely using javascript and you need an updated web browser. The attack surface on those things are enormous.

ChrisRR 7y ago

I'd agree with you there. I run Arch on my home computer and update fully pretty much every time I use it (because it's so fast to update everything) and I think I've only had 1 breaking change in ~5 years.

rlpb 7y ago

> I run a lot of machines on Ubuntu LTS If you don't like frozen packages, why are you using Ubuntu LTS? Ubuntu provides an updated stable release every six months if you want something closer to rolling. But most Ubuntu users, not even desktop users, use that. The market is speaking, and it wants stable releases frozen for years at a time. It is a contradiction to demand both.

thegeomaster 7y ago
I run servers on Ubuntu LTS, my personal machines on Arch. Frozen packages are great for servers but for desktops I just don't see the benefit. Hence my comment.