692
Old is stability
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Mar 2024
692 points (98.1% liked)
linuxmemes
19717 readers
330 users here now
I use Arch btw
Sister communities:
- LemmyMemes: Memes
- LemmyShitpost: Anything and everything goes.
- RISA: Star Trek memes and shitposts
Community rules
- Follow the site-wide rules and code of conduct
- Be civil
- Post Linux-related content
- No recent reposts
Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
For my use cases (audio, programming, engineering school, watching crap on FreeTube) I value stability and predictability over security and shiny new stuff. In the rare cases that things break, they break in ways that are already well-understood, so usually have workarounds or solutions.
In the few cases I do need something newer than the Debian repos provide, I just use Flatpaks or get an updated .deb from the devs of the particular software.
So yeah, zero rush for Plasma 6 for me. It looks nice, but I'll just be chilling on Plasma 5 until it comes out.
There is a fine line between stable and outdated. Some debian pakages are like 2 years out of date. I just cant handle that on a desktop.
Flatpak, nix, guix, snap, appimage, distrobox, etc. You most certainly can handle that.
On my system half of the packages come from Debian repositories, and half from nix unstable.
2 years out of date is usually fine for me. When it isn't, I haven't had a problem using the Flatpak or a .deb directly from whoever released the software.
So don't run stable on a desktop? If you want a bleeding edge rolling release, that's what sid is for.
Dont you think there is a healthy line between booth? I would not whant anyone using old ass versions with old ass bugs. Its also bad for new users, who expect software to be remotly up to date.
For the target users of Debian stable? No.
Debian stable is for servers or other applications where security and predictability are paramount. For that application I absolutely do not want a lot package churn. Quite the opposite.
Meanwhile Sid provides a rolling release experience that in practice is every bit as stable as any other rolling release distro.
And if I have something running stable and I really need to pull in the latest of something, I can always mix and match.
What makes Debian unique is that it offers a spectrum of options for different use cases and then lets me choose.
If you don't want that, fine, don't use Debian. But for a lot of us, we choose Debian because of how it's managed, not in spite of it.
Arch is actually pretty stable. And one of the best things about using arch is the arch wiki which is the best documentation I've ever seen for any distro.
My experience trying to solve specific issues on Debian and Ubuntu lead me down rabbit holes of forums where even the accepted answer is wrong.