Most stable and tested distribution?
in [General Linux]
|
Prev: passive mode ftp high ports driving me nuts
Next: equivalent of f.circleup or CirculateUp for fvwm2
From: Mark Hobley on 5 Jan 2010 22:08 John Hasler <jhasler(a)newsguy.com> wrote: > I've done so successfully with every release of Debian. Debian has broken for me a couple of times, as have all of the major distributions. Sometimes there are bugs introduced into the kernel which are inherited by most of the distributions. If you want stability, do not upgrade. There is always a risk of breakage unless you have total control of the distribution, do your own compilation, testing and auditing of the code. Mark. -- Mark Hobley Linux User: #370818 http://markhobley.yi.org/
From: Dan C on 5 Jan 2010 23:32 On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 00:50:17 +0000, Giorgos Tzampanakis wrote: > Sidney Lambe <sidneylambe(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in > news:slrnhk7mu7.5fn.sidneylambe(a)evergreen.net: > >> The distros are illusions. It's just Linux. Myself and many others >> disdain the GDEs and bloated package managers and run Linux from the >> commandline from an x-terminal-emulator. > > That doesn't sound very bad, but can I still use applications with > graphical environments, and have sound support? PLEASE don't start this discussion with "Sidney". He's a known Usenet kook whacko, whom you may have heard of by the name "Alan Connor". Probably the most reviled troll in Usenet history. Just ignore the fucker and carry on. Please. -- "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". "Bother!" said Pooh, as he wiped the vomit from his chin. Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
From: Dan C on 5 Jan 2010 23:33 On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 20:10:59 +0000, Giorgos Tzampanakis wrote: > I've tried linux twice, both with ubuntu, first time plain ubuntu and > later kubuntu. Both times my system was working fine until an update > broke it. Now, I understand limited hardware support in linux, because > it stems from the small market share. I am willing to go out of my way > to buy only linux-supported hardware. > > However, I *can't* stress this enough: I can't accept official updates > breaking a system. It's just horribly and undeniably unacceptable. A > user should not be afraid to update their system, unless he's knowingly > installing beta software or touching something he shouldn't. > > So, since I still want to switch to linux, I want some suggestions on > which distribution is the most stable and most well-tested. I don't care > that much about cutting-edge features, and I can wait for a while until > a new version of some software hits the official repositories. But this > is important: When the system asks to update itself, there shouldn't be > a chance that it will break X, or gnome, or KDE, or the kernel, or > whatever. > > Suggestions? Simple answer. Slackware. Rock solid stable. Nothing better. -- "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". "Bother!" said Pooh, as he wiped the vomit from his chin. Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
From: despen on 5 Jan 2010 23:39 unruh <unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> writes: > On 2010-01-05, despen(a)verizon.net <despen(a)verizon.net> wrote: >> Stan Bischof <stan(a)newserve.worldbadminton.com> writes: >> >>> Giorgos Tzampanakis <gt67(a)hw.ac.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>> Suggestions? >>> >>> debian Stable. >>> >>> Or if you don't mind spending a few $$, RedHat ( NOT fedora ) >>> >>> Never "upgrade" a major release, do clean reinstall > > Redhat is GPL and is just as free as fedora. However they tend to want > you to buy a support contract, which is what costs the money. Find a > friend who has the Redhat DVDs and copy and use them. > >> >> I just did an "upgrade" from FC10 to FC11. >> Pretty smooth. > > The problem is that the same set of programs will suddenly be given a > new name. thus gimp suddenly becomes gimp2. the upgrade will see that > there is no upgrade for gimp, and leave it on the system, but that gimp2 > is required and install it. The problem is that there may be overlaps of > files between the two, and thus what gets installed is buggered up for > at least one of them (usually the old one). I don't think a package should rename itself like that but assuming that gimp and gimp2 conflicted with each other, the upgrade system should clean out the old version before it installs the new. >> I think release upgrades is an issue that can be conquered, >> it's just a matter of time. > > It is mainly a matter of proper housekeeping-- making sure that the > upgrade of an old package handles that old package properly. If they > have the same name, rpm does OK, but if the name has changed, it is a > mess. Shouldn't be and I think we're getting closer to the time when we can rely on smooth upgrading. I'm not saying everyone should rush out and try it but if you have the patience... Fedora has a "preupgrade" tool to guide you through the process.
From: despen on 5 Jan 2010 23:40
Robert Heller <heller(a)deepsoft.com> writes: > At Tue, 05 Jan 2010 19:06:22 -0600 John Hasler <jhasler(a)newsguy.com> wrote: > >> >> Bill Unruh writes: >> > The problem is that the same set of programs will suddenly be given a >> > new name. thus gimp suddenly becomes gimp2. the upgrade will see that >> > there is no upgrade for gimp, and leave it on the system, but that >> > gimp2 is required and install it. The problem is that there may be >> > overlaps of files between the two, and thus what gets installed is >> > buggered up for at least one of them (usually the old one). >> >> Debian handles this sort of thing smoothly. I don't see why Fedora >> can't. It's just a matter of proper planning. > > Fedora is specificly not designed to be 'upgraded'. Fedora is a beta > testbed system and each incarnation of Fedora 'starts from scratch'. Then explain what the "preupgrade" tool is doing in FC11. |