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: habibielwa7id on 6 Jan 2010 04:57 On Jan 5, 10:10 pm, Giorgos Tzampanakis <g...(a)hw.ac.uk> 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? This happened to some of my friends, Ubuntu really is the most user friendly distro in the Linux world, but it's not stable enough, Fedora in my opinion is more stable than Ubuntu, I update Fedora it regularly and don't see similar problem. Stick to the more stable Linux distros, Debian or Centos.
From: The Natural Philosopher on 6 Jan 2010 05:33 Robert Heller wrote: > At Tue, 5 Jan 2010 23:12:39 +0000 (UTC) Giorgos Tzampanakis <gt67(a)hw.ac.uk> wrote: > >> Robert Heller <heller(a)deepsoft.com> wrote in >> news:mOidnSEqiIK3WN7WnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d(a)posted.localnet: >> >>> RHEL ($$) or CentOS/Whitebox/Pink Tie/Scientific Linux >>> (free) (7 years) Ubuntu LTS (3 years) >>> Debian Stable >> This looks like a nice list. Is it possible to use KDE with any >> of them and still get the same reliability? I know some >> distributions have a prefered Desktop Environment. >> >> I prefer KDE to Gnome, however I will compromise for reliability. > > RHEL (and free clones thereof) includes KDE, but defaults to the Gnome > desktop. You can tell it to install KDE as well as Gnome (or maybe > instead of Gnome). Once KDE is installed (either initially or as a post > install), you can then switch your desktop to KDE. > > I don't know about Debian or Ubuntu. > >> > Debian is very Gnomeish. I've never tried KDE. once a system is stable I stop **ing with it. And just use it. Problems Ive got on Debian Lenny 64 bit were - needed latest kernel for Intel video speed. Backports has it. - needed latest firefox for web site authoring compatibility. Not available from debian, so compiled from source. Many plugins dont work properly. Only take this route if you have to. Iceweasel is rock solid for firefox 2 setups. - Vmware needs patching for latest kernel. Non trivial, but stumbled through. Basically the message is that debian if you stick to pre-compiled release packages is 99.99% stable. If you start compiling your own to get later release features, you will run into many issues of later packages expecting later libraries etc. At this stage its probably better to bite the bullet and go debian unstable
From: The Natural Philosopher on 6 Jan 2010 05:35 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? Ignore Sidney. He is mentally ill.
From: Maxwell Lol on 6 Jan 2010 07:52 Giorgos Tzampanakis <gt67(a)hw.ac.uk> writes: >> Never "upgrade" a major release, do clean reinstall > > It looks like this is a very important point. I wonder why. That's one of the reasons I always have a separate /home partition. I can to a re-install and leave my personal files alone. Even so, one of problems can be the "dot" files utilities use to retain preferences for applications. There are times when I have to remove and recreate the dot files.
From: Giorgos Tzampanakis on 6 Jan 2010 07:55
On 2010-01-06, Mark Hobley <markhobley(a)hotpop.donottypethisbit.com> wrote: > 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. This is very disheartening. I personally believe that an upgrade should never be pushed until there's been enough testing to all but guarantee it will break nothing. In my experience, it's the Desktop Environment upgrades that most often break systems, am I right? |