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: Giorgos Tzampanakis on 5 Jan 2010 15:10 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?
From: philo on 5 Jan 2010 15:17 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? Probably a mature distribution such as CentOS
From: J G Miller on 5 Jan 2010 15:52 On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 20:10:59 +0000, Giorgos Tzampanakis asked: > Suggestions? Debian. It is only ready for release when it is ready -- ie fully tested and major bugs removed.
From: Bit Twister on 5 Jan 2010 15:51 On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 20:10:59 +0000 (UTC), Giorgos Tzampanakis wrote: > > Now, I understand limited hardware support in > linux, because it stems from the small market share. I would have guessed the non-disclosure contracts by an un-named O$ is the major cause of limited hardware support. > I am willing > to go out of my way to buy only linux-supported hardware. Three cheers for your side. > 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. 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 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. Mandriva does two releases a year with an 18 month support window. Your problem is, that usually means a new release of the desktop manager(s). Currently KDE is in high flux and you cannot expect an upgrade from one major linux release to another to go seamlessly at this point in time. You want it well tested, pick your distribution and be one of the testers. That way you test under your setup/requirements and will know the kinds of impacts you'll have when you decide to go to the next release.
From: The Natural Philosopher on 5 Jan 2010 16:51
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? I've found debian to be three releases behind, but boringly stable. |