3 ms·

Fedora isn't perfect, but it can go for weeks without updates and then update cleanly reliably, which is not something you typically get with rolling distributi

Fedora isn't perfect, but it can go for weeks without updates and then update cleanly reliably, which is not something you typically get with rolling distributions. This makes it well suited for use as a dual booted secondary OS or VM OS.

sh34r 3y ago
If you desire stability and you’re already used to Ubuntu derivatives, there’s always Debian.
- kitsunesoba 3y ago
  The issue with Debian is how old application packages are, and I'm not really into Flatpak. Fedora's packages are pretty close in recency to what's shipping on other platforms.
  - sh34r 3y ago
    Stability and update frequency are inversely correlated. It’s largely an unavoidable trade-off. It makes perfect sense to me that you’d feel that Fedora struck a better balance for you. Many people prefer Debian based distros. Some people use Debian on the desktop because they prefer less frequent updates (among other reasons). I’m just stating the obvious here, really.
  - mcagl 3y ago
    Debian testing is more stable than other "so-called stable" distros, and has often newer packages than the contemporary ubuntu version.
    - lmm 3y ago
      Debian testing puts you in a pretty bad place in terms of security updates; you're not getting new upstream releases as quickly as unstable/experimental, but they don't do dedicated backports of security fixes like with stable.
RussianCow 3y ago
Anecdata: I've used Arch Linux for several years and it's been probably 3-4 years since I've had any stability issues with it after upgrading. And the last time I did run into problems, it was from bugs in the open source AMD GPU drivers due to how relatively immature they were at the time. Would I use it for a mission critical workstation or server? Probably not. But for daily personal use, it's been completely fine for me and I would highly recommend it to others. Slightly tangential question: Is there a distro that has a stable "core" (kernel, maybe some userspace libraries) but uses rolling releases for everything else? Ideally, that would probably give you the best of both worlds for a personal machine.
- bamfly 3y ago
  > Slightly tangential question: Is there a distro that has a stable "core" (kernel, maybe some userspace libraries) but uses rolling releases for everything else? Ideally, that would probably give you the best of both worlds for a personal machine. I'm aware this isn't exactly what you were asking for—and with the disclaimer that I spent a lot of years as a Linux desktop user, so I do have a great deal of experience with how that "half" lives, but: this is one of the things that's so nice about MacOS + Homebrew. It's a very stable core (up through and including the graphical environment—after all, if that breaks on a workstation/desktop, that's nearly as bad as the whole OS breaking) that only updates every couple years (and I can ignore the updates a long time without notable consequences) with a very-high-package-count package manager that's rolling-release on top of it, for most of the software I directly use. I'd love to see a Linux distro that worked that way—I don't think I could go back to doing package management the typical Linux way, on my workstation. I've done rolling-release, I've done everything-stable-and-maybe-some-bodged-in-extra-repositories-for-newer-stuff, and both suck, for my needs, compared to this arrangement. Stable core + rolling applications is great, would be thrilled to see more Linux distros explore that kind of thing.
  - kitsunesoba 3y ago
    Homebrew has its issues, but yes I also like the approach of the system and the packages I install living in two entirely separate worlds, with the system being boring and stable and other packages lining up with whatever is currently shipping for Windows/macOS. The extra space consumed is negligible and well worth the turbulence reduction. Immutable distributions like Fedora Silverblue seem to lean in that direction, though I've never used them personally.

sh34r 3y ago

If you desire stability and you’re already used to Ubuntu derivatives, there’s always Debian.

kitsunesoba 3y ago
The issue with Debian is how old application packages are, and I'm not really into Flatpak. Fedora's packages are pretty close in recency to what's shipping on other platforms.
- sh34r 3y ago
  Stability and update frequency are inversely correlated. It’s largely an unavoidable trade-off. It makes perfect sense to me that you’d feel that Fedora struck a better balance for you. Many people prefer Debian based distros. Some people use Debian on the desktop because they prefer less frequent updates (among other reasons). I’m just stating the obvious here, really.
- mcagl 3y ago
  Debian testing is more stable than other "so-called stable" distros, and has often newer packages than the contemporary ubuntu version.
  - lmm 3y ago
    Debian testing puts you in a pretty bad place in terms of security updates; you're not getting new upstream releases as quickly as unstable/experimental, but they don't do dedicated backports of security fixes like with stable.

RussianCow 3y ago

Anecdata: I've used Arch Linux for several years and it's been probably 3-4 years since I've had any stability issues with it after upgrading. And the last time I did run into problems, it was from bugs in the open source AMD GPU drivers due to how relatively immature they were at the time. Would I use it for a mission critical workstation or server? Probably not. But for daily personal use, it's been completely fine for me and I would highly recommend it to others. Slightly tangential question: Is there a distro that has a stable "core" (kernel, maybe some userspace libraries) but uses rolling releases for everything else? Ideally, that would probably give you the best of both worlds for a personal machine.

bamfly 3y ago
> Slightly tangential question: Is there a distro that has a stable "core" (kernel, maybe some userspace libraries) but uses rolling releases for everything else? Ideally, that would probably give you the best of both worlds for a personal machine. I'm aware this isn't exactly what you were asking for—and with the disclaimer that I spent a lot of years as a Linux desktop user, so I do have a great deal of experience with how that "half" lives, but: this is one of the things that's so nice about MacOS + Homebrew. It's a very stable core (up through and including the graphical environment—after all, if that breaks on a workstation/desktop, that's nearly as bad as the whole OS breaking) that only updates every couple years (and I can ignore the updates a long time without notable consequences) with a very-high-package-count package manager that's rolling-release on top of it, for most of the software I directly use. I'd love to see a Linux distro that worked that way—I don't think I could go back to doing package management the typical Linux way, on my workstation. I've done rolling-release, I've done everything-stable-and-maybe-some-bodged-in-extra-repositories-for-newer-stuff, and both suck, for my needs, compared to this arrangement. Stable core + rolling applications is great, would be thrilled to see more Linux distros explore that kind of thing.
- kitsunesoba 3y ago
  Homebrew has its issues, but yes I also like the approach of the system and the packages I install living in two entirely separate worlds, with the system being boring and stable and other packages lining up with whatever is currently shipping for Windows/macOS. The extra space consumed is negligible and well worth the turbulence reduction. Immutable distributions like Fedora Silverblue seem to lean in that direction, though I've never used them personally.