Log in
| 1 | ||
| 1 | ||
| 1 | ||
| 1 | ||
| 1 |
I know @x0x7 runs Arch and achieves more stability by constantly updating his OS. It's a nice thing about using a rolling release. It's one reason to choose Debian Testing over Stable. With fixed releases, you need to upgrade to the new release periodically and that can go wrong, while with a rolling release you have done those updates incrementally.
However, that doesn't mean you need to use a bleeding edge system. It's good to have your software tested for you. Debian Testing uses a repository of software that has been testing in Debian Sid for a while and then gets the first okay for entering into a stable system. This is a good balance between things.
I make this post because Artix was recommended to @JasonCarswell. Do not use Artix unless you want to spend a lot of time maintaining your system. Okay you've used Linux in the past but I'm giving you a heads-up, you will have to tinker. I'm not even recommending Debian Testing to you. I'm simply making this post to note that that gives the best of both worlds, theoretically speaking.
Ideally, a system is built such that it doesn't break when you upgrade, or it can upgrade safely while keeping the current configuration intact. Atomic distros do that and that's a good development. Personally, I like my system to be simple, such that I can know it inside out. Atomic distros add a layer of complexity.
The next best thing is a release cycle where you only have to upgrade now and then. Debian Stable has standard support for 3 years and then an additional 2 years of LTS. The latter are just security updates. This is good on paper but they change the system a lot. They have implemented systemd a long time ago and now you need to use a fork to avoid it, but the fork still has elogind and to avoid that you need to use another fork called antix which, as @Gr3vi pointed out, is weird. It has a weird interface. I cannot right click on the network manager icon and add a VPN that way, I need to jump through hoops. The interface is really minimalistic. I don't like it.
This is why I use Slackware. It too uses a stable release cycle and has often provided security updates for 10+ years. It's very similar to Apple in this aspect: there is no official release policy, just a promise, but the LTS track record is good. But beyond this, they are very conservative in adopting change so that you don't have to relearn how everything works incrementally. They didn't switch to systemd to begin with so that you don't have to use a fork. Although, admittedly, they do use elogind. Antix is in fact notable for patching all the software to not need elogind and in that aspect it's an important distro.
Okay the post is long enough bye.
I don't constantly update my system. I have a total of 5 Artix systems I'm running, and several ubuntu servers. All of the arch ones have different update frequencies. All of them are stable. All of the ubuntu ones I wish were Artix because I would have more confidence I could upgrade software and add new things without borking it if it were Artix instead of Ubuntu. You just have to update pacman before installing new software. I wish it wouldn't let you. It's the one gotcha.
The one reason it doesn't force correct usage is that if you've updated in the last couple of days you are good to install new things without updating. So if it forced upgrading for each individual package even when it wasn't needed that would get old. Thankfully it doesn't. Just don't install anything new if you haven't updated in the last week (a week is chancing it). Even in the case that you chanced it and get bit, it isn't that hard to fix. AI can guide you through it in that once in a year problem. It will be a corrupted initramfs or mismatched kernel. Boot in a live cd. artix-chroot /mnt/thedrive. pacman -S linux.
Artix is not bleeding edge. Not even close. They have testing repos you could install from. Modern open source also has version staging on the dev side. So by the time it gets install in Artix it is months old. But critically, none of the software is years old an incompatable with all other new software, creating a needless dependency alignment window problem that can't be tested across all permutations of software that could be installed. Ubuntu and debian are setting up an unneccissary hard problem that they also happen to suck at.
Jason 100% install Artix. Larry is always complaining about Linux and how none of his systems work. There is a reason. There is a reason experienced people run Arch. The common though flase narrative is that those people are further along a learning curve and can handle it. The more accurate narrative is experienced people learn what doesn't give them problems and want fewer problems, the same as new people. But they have the experience to actually know what causes fewer problems. Experienced people also do productive things with their system and don't have time to fix Ubuntu constantly. They are done doing personal computer fixing and want something that just works (but in the linux case just works without restricting them ala mac or windows).
Ubuntu and debian decided long ago they want to be a stable production system, back when they though they could be the non-enterprise enterprise and take market share away from Redhat. Actually they succeeded at that. But their model isn't as tuned as they claim it is for desktop linux. A personal instance of desktop linux is a lot more dynamic and needs to be fluid without complaining or breaking when you ask it to be fluid. That's not what Ubuntu is.
Everyone who is experienced who wants to run desktop linux is using an Arch based system. There is a reason for that. It is the modern and correct way to do things. Everyone should be having smooth installs of new software. It's stable as fuck. There is a reason why Valve uses it for SteamOS. They wouldn't be sticking it on devices if they thought rolling releases are dangerous.
Now the one disingenous thing I've said that maybe isn't that universal is promoting Artix. For you @JasonCarswell, actually install plain Arch or Catchy if it is easier. The reason is Artix involves one extra step to make it good that I worry you might struggle with. And that is that Artix "unofficially" supports combining it with Arch repos, which you are going to want to do if you want all the software and compatability with most of the AUR. And adding that to the configs is a slightly technical step.
You can ask @Gr3vi if Catchy has a smooth install experience. I'm sure it does.
But if you do decided to install Artix, you can live with just the Artix packages for a bit and I can help you later get the Arch packages in and access to AUR setup.
Larry is already making a point that he may not realize he is making in the body of his text. He is saying one distro is still using "elogind" and to avoid some old version of a thing you actually need to use this other thing. How would you know that? These old systems with mixed era software require a high level of literacy of the available software to avoid footguns like that. What Larry doesn't understand is that is a uniquely Debian/Ubuntu problem. He's like a fish that doesn't even see water. He thinks these are normal problems to deal with that are just a given in the Linux world. They don't have to be. I don't deal with that shit. I don't deal with any of the crap he complains about in the /s/LinSucks topic. I just use my system. It just works. It just installs any software I want. It never complains in that process or hands me another problem to solve.
Larry, just run Arch and quit torturing yourself. You fucked up one system and never tried it again. You've seen arch break once. I've seen debian based systems break 50 times or more. And I've seen them introduce struggles to get reasonable software installed for zero good reason 100s of times. I can count on one hand the number of times I had to actually struggle to install something on Arch (and usually it's something insanely obscure). Those same struggles add up on new people. If it's hard for me to get a system working the way I want on ubuntu then it's harder on new people. You always say how much it's a struggle to get linux to actually do what you want. Seems to track with the systems you use. I've had the same experiences on the same systems. The problem is you don't correlate it with what you are using because you haven't tried all of the major systems multiple times like I have. People who have enough experience to have multiple datapoints for each system (not one) all like Arch.