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: TJ on 6 Jan 2010 08:54 Bit Twister wrote: > > Define updates and which type of linux, (free or paid support). > > I have yet to have a Mandriva Linux Package security/fix Update break > my install. For a Major Release, I never update. I do a clean install. > > I had one Mandriva kernel update that "broke" my system, due to some bug that didn't surface until the general update release. But it was a non-issue because of Mandriva's policy of leaving old kernels still installed and available. All I had to do was choose the old kernel from the Grub menu, and I was back and going again. I used the package manager to remove the problem kernel, and simply waited for Mandriva to release a bugfixed version. IIRC, it took about a week. Once I was sure the new kernel would work properly on my system, I used the package manager to remove the old one. BTW, had I been using the alternative, malware-ridden OS, I would have either had to buy new hardware or stick with the old OS version, since my hardware was no longer "adequate" for the latest release. That was a couple of years ago. I'm still using Mandriva on the same hardware, and it still works great. Oh, there's a little tweaking involved, but actually, much less than there used to be seven years ago when I first started with Linux. TJ
From: andrew on 5 Jan 2010 20:04 On 2010-01-05, Giorgos Tzampanakis <gt67(a)hw.ac.uk> wrote: > 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. You are describing Slackware :). Perhaps wait for Slackware 13.1 which will have a decent version of KDE or just jump in now with 13.0 if like me you are an xfce fan... Andrew -- Do you think that's air you're breathing?
From: ray on 5 Jan 2010 17:46 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? 'Most' is pretty difficult to quantify. I've been running Ubuntu on a variety of machines for three or four years without encountering that difficulty. It is true that I don't upgrade to the latest version as soon as it is released - still using 8.10, as a matter fact. IMHO - Debian Stable has earned it's name.
From: Robert Riches on 5 Jan 2010 21:03 On 2010-01-06, Robert Heller <heller(a)deepsoft.com> wrote: > At Wed, 06 Jan 2010 00:18:09 GMT unruh <unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> wrote: > >> >> 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. > > The source RPMs are GPL (and freely available). RedHat does not make a > binary / install CD set/DVD available (unless you pay them). There are > de-branded binary / install CD sets/DVDs available: CentOS, Whitebox, > Pink Tie, and Scientific Linux are all available and are generally > binary compatible with RHEL (CentOS and Whitebox are, not sure about > Pink Tie or Scientific Linux). The GPL (at least the last version I studied, 2, IIRC) is carefully worded by the FSF to apply to _BOTH_ source and binary. The term used in the license is "the program". The FSF (Free Software Foundation) was around before the term "open source" had been heard by more than a handful of people. We have had the discussion about HatRed's policies being at odds with the GPL in this newsgroup at least a few times over the past several years. -- Robert Riches spamtrap42(a)verizon.net (Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)
From: Robert Heller on 6 Jan 2010 09:17
At Wed, 6 Jan 2010 12:55:37 +0000 (UTC) Giorgos Tzampanakis <gt67(a)hw.ac.uk> wrote: > > 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? Not necessarily, although server daemons tend to more long term stable, in that major API / UI changes are rare for such programs, although things like major updates of PostgreSQL usually require a [SQL] dump / restore of the database. What I do when doing a major version upgrade is create a new set of root (/), /usr, and /var file systems and do a fresh install there and then create a multi-boot system (where I can boot both my current system and the new version), then migrate system config stuff from the old system to the new system, testing as I go along. Of course this requires having enough spare disk space and/or spare disks AND things partitioned properly (eg separate /home file system at the least). > -- Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933 Deepwoods Software -- Download the Model Railroad System http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Binaries for Linux and MS-Windows heller(a)deepsoft.com -- http://www.deepsoft.com/ModelRailroadSystem/ |