There is no point to use a rolling release distro right now. Stable, long term releases like Debian Stable (or even oldstable), Ubuntu LTS and CentOS can use the latest software thanks to:
>AppImage
>Snappy
>Flatpak
>distro-specific repostitories
>backports
>tarballs (like Mozilla's official, self-updating Firefox tarball)
>Guix
>Nix
>compiling the program
Once the hardware is working properly and the OS is properly configured there's realistically no reason to upgrade at all for 5-8 years. In the slim chance that a new kernel release somehow makes your hardware run better, there's ways to obtain those too.
There's simply no reason to run a rolling release distro, change shared libraries from your operating system and risk new bugs, regressions and crashes.
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
mucho texto + kys this isnt reddit
this, to add to OP homosexuality, if you need a more up to date kernel with some "good defaults" you could try Liquorix (I don't remember the name of the other one).
It gives a little more performance than default Ubuntu kernels. That said, it's not necessary but it's a good alternative if you have newer hardware.
t. cannot touch the tip of xher own toes.
toes don't have tips, they are flat at the end. like how an oval shape works
I tried both and both suck. c
cope, seethe and dilate debian/ arch troony
Compiling is never syraightforward as they make it seem.
Sometimes you get lucky and it comes with a configure file which i guess its too much to ask.
>oldstable
lmao
both are shit but you still get some homosexual defending one of them
every time
Nakadashi arch imouto
or just use windows where any ancient software runs on the newest windows and very often the other way around as well unless the moron devs go out of their way to make it not work on older versions
>Use Debian
>Version of *insert program here* included has a serious bug that has been fixed a long time ago in a newer version
>Only will get updated when the next release of Debian comes out
when i used ubuntu lts, every time a new major version came out everything broke all at once. occasionally things on arch break but it's much more manageable for me since updates occur more frequently
"stable" releases are often insecure and buggy
all of these distros claim to backport security patches and libraries, but only rhel has the resources to back up that claim
debian and even ubuntu simply don't have enough contributors to realistically backport essential packages
it literally takes debian 3 months on average to release kernel security patches
Demonstrate me a security bulletins where Debian hasn't patched a vuln while Red Hat did.
CVE-2021-3347, arbitrary code execution for the kernel
it took arch and fedora (leading release, not stable) 2 weeks to update
it took both debian and red hat 4 months to update, with red hat being slightly faster
running a rolling release package manager on a stable distro is just running a rolling release distro with held back security updates
debian with flatpak and a custom kernel is just a bootleg fedora
Too late. I went rolling release and I'm not going back.
Debian Stable breaks more than Arch.
I'm pretty sure you're a zoomer who's been using Linux for a year or two max why are you telling people what's the most stable in 5-8 years? You haven't even been an adult that long lolololololol.
>Debian Stable breaks more than Arch
I've been using Debian Stable since 2011 and it has never broken once.
I use gentoo and nothing has ever broken. Your whole argument falls apart in the face of:
>a world-class space-age package manager that always knows the right way to handle any situation
>"masking," which effectively creates a stable/rolling dichotomy per-package instead of systemwide *without* the need for a backup repo, and provides a sensible way for maintainers to tell the end user when they're still ironing out a package release, and leave it up to the user to decide if the new functionality is worth the risk
>"slotting" which lets you keep multiple versions of the same package on your system at once, so if one version breaks anything, switching to the other takes about one second
>building everything from source, which pretty much completely prevents selective upgrades from causing linker-related crashes
>b--but masking... but that's not even rolling release, it's just point release
Not so. Since it's per-package, the system as a whole is not a point-release distro. Gentoo is not (meaningfully) itself a multi-release OS. It's a rolling-release distro with nothing but point-release packages.
>rolling release is deprecated
>here's how to do rolling release, but gay
I thought people use arch because it has nothing OOB so you don't need to debloat it?
Arch is not a light distro.
you can netinstall debian without using the graphical installer
There is no point to pee pee poo poo peepoo pee poo
arch just werks
morons can lecture me day and night about how arch shouldn't just werk as a matter of principle but it still just werks
luv me mandatory full upgrades
luv me storage-eating giant packages
luv me script that checks the news feed before upgrades so i don't destroy my install
luv me AUR security hole
'ate "stable" releases that explode on major version upgrades
'ate dicking with PPAs and appimages and flatpaks
simple as
up
rolling release is pretty much only used by NEETs on IQfy anyway, on servers and actual workstations you never see rolling
arch linux is my cute gf