4 ms·

Debian and Ubuntu tend to want to lock the version of a system tools to the version of the OS. Debian tends to have long release cycles, but is very stable. E

Debian and Ubuntu tend to want to lock the version of a system tools to the version of the OS. Debian tends to have long release cycles, but is very stable. Everything will work perfectly together on stable (in fact, testing tends to be almost as good at stability vs other OSes). Ubuntu is basically Debian with "but what if we released more frequently?". If you want the latest tools, then you'll have to settle for a less stable OS (sort of). Nix and Arch come to mind. Neither are super user friendly. If you want stable and the latest tools, Gentoo is the way to go. However, it's even more intimidating than Arch. If you want stability and simplicity, then the other way to go is sacrificing disk space. Docker/podman, flatpak, appcontainers, and snap are all contenders in this field. Windows and Mac both have the same problem. Windows solved this by basically just shipping old versions of libraries and dynamically linking them in based on what app is running.

thayne 2y ago
"stable" as used to describe debian (and Ubuntu) means "does not change", which includes adding new functionality.
- damentz 2y ago
  Correct, another way of looking at it is from a programming angle. If Debian fixes a bug that breaks your tool, then Debian is unstable. Therefore, to maintain stability, Debian must not fix bugs unless they threaten security. The term "stable" is the most polluted term in Linux, it's not something to be proud of. Similar to how high uptime was a virtue, now it just means your system probably has been pwned at some point.
odo1242 2y ago
Fedora strikes a pretty good tradeoff on the “is user friendly” and “has latest tools regardless of system version” balance, I would say.
- rurban 2y ago
  Exactly. Much more stable and much more uptodate as Debian derivates. But much less packages also.
jjayj 2y ago
The other option here is "pick an OS and when necessary install newer packages from source." We've been doing this for a long time at my current workplace (for dev containers) and haven't run into any problems.
chrismorgan 2y ago
I find it funny calling Arch “less stable”, because I’m inclined to find it more stable, for my purposes, skills and attitudes. I’ve administered at least one each of: Ubuntu server (set up by another; the rest were by me), Ubuntu desktop at least ten years ago, Arch desktop, Arch server. The Arch machines get very occasional breakages, generally either very obvious, or signposted well. I did have real trouble once, but that was connected with cutting corners while updating a laptop that had been switched off for two years. (I’ve updated by more than a year at least two other times, with no problems beyond having to update the keyring package manually before doing the rest. The specific corners I cut this one time led to the post-upgrade hooks not running, and I simply forgot to trigger them manually in order to redo the initcpio image, because I was in a hurry. Due to boot process changes, maybe it was zstd stuff, can’t remember, it wouldn’t boot until I fixed it via booting from a USB drive and chrooting into it and running the hooks.) Now Ubuntu… within a distro release it’s no trouble, except that you’re more likely to need to add external package sources, which will cause trouble later. I feel like Ubuntu release upgrades have caused a lot more pain than Arch ever did. Partly that may be due to differences in the sorts of packages that are installed on the machines, and partly it may be due to having used third-party repositories and/or PPAs, but there were reasons why those things had to be added, whether because software or OS were too old or too new, and none of them would have been needed under Arch (maybe a few AUR packages, but ones where there would have been no trouble). You could say that I saw more trouble from Ubuntu because I was using it wrong, but… it wouldn’t have been suitable without so “using it wrong”.

thayne 2y ago

"stable" as used to describe debian (and Ubuntu) means "does not change", which includes adding new functionality.

damentz 2y ago
Correct, another way of looking at it is from a programming angle. If Debian fixes a bug that breaks your tool, then Debian is unstable. Therefore, to maintain stability, Debian must not fix bugs unless they threaten security. The term "stable" is the most polluted term in Linux, it's not something to be proud of. Similar to how high uptime was a virtue, now it just means your system probably has been pwned at some point.

odo1242 2y ago

Fedora strikes a pretty good tradeoff on the “is user friendly” and “has latest tools regardless of system version” balance, I would say.

rurban 2y ago
Exactly. Much more stable and much more uptodate as Debian derivates. But much less packages also.

jjayj 2y ago

The other option here is "pick an OS and when necessary install newer packages from source." We've been doing this for a long time at my current workplace (for dev containers) and haven't run into any problems.

chrismorgan 2y ago

I find it funny calling Arch “less stable”, because I’m inclined to find it more stable, for my purposes, skills and attitudes. I’ve administered at least one each of: Ubuntu server (set up by another; the rest were by me), Ubuntu desktop at least ten years ago, Arch desktop, Arch server. The Arch machines get very occasional breakages, generally either very obvious, or signposted well. I did have real trouble once, but that was connected with cutting corners while updating a laptop that had been switched off for two years. (I’ve updated by more than a year at least two other times, with no problems beyond having to update the keyring package manually before doing the rest. The specific corners I cut this one time led to the post-upgrade hooks not running, and I simply forgot to trigger them manually in order to redo the initcpio image, because I was in a hurry. Due to boot process changes, maybe it was zstd stuff, can’t remember, it wouldn’t boot until I fixed it via booting from a USB drive and chrooting into it and running the hooks.) Now Ubuntu… within a distro release it’s no trouble, except that you’re more likely to need to add external package sources, which will cause trouble later. I feel like Ubuntu release upgrades have caused a lot more pain than Arch ever did. Partly that may be due to differences in the sorts of packages that are installed on the machines, and partly it may be due to having used third-party repositories and/or PPAs, but there were reasons why those things had to be added, whether because software or OS were too old or too new, and none of them would have been needed under Arch (maybe a few AUR packages, but ones where there would have been no trouble). You could say that I saw more trouble from Ubuntu because I was using it wrong, but… it wouldn’t have been suitable without so “using it wrong”.