Why are some distros more reliable and stable?

[sofasurfer]

It is my understanding that all distributions use the same kernel which is the actual "linux". What makes distributions different from one another (Ubuntu vs Mint vs Debian, etc) is ONLY that each one has its own specific set of accompanying packages to suit the needs and desires of the distribution creator and user.

If the above assessment is correct then why are some distributions said to be better, more stable or more reliable?
Or am I way off base on this?

 

[dos2unix]

I run several different distro's and they are all fairly stable.
We have some servers here that have uptimes of over 3500 days. (about 9 years)
that have never been rebooted, updated or taken off-line.

 

[Brickwizard]

Linux is the Operational Kernel used by all distributions, the developers then tune a distribution to their ideas of what a distribution should look like using the same box of parts, if we take a Debian distribution [Ubuntu/Mint/Parrot/MX, Kali, & etc]
They can be based on Debian stable [all components and updates are fully tested to work] or Debian testing as it said testing, it will have the latest available update to apps and kernel drivers, but as it is not stable may break when you do an update.

You pay your money and take your choice [as the saying goes] if you are new to Linux then choose a stable based distribution, if you are experienced as a Linux user and like the challenge of keep fixing things, choose a Testing based distribution.

 

[KGIII]

In my experience, stability is up to you. The distros are all fairly stable and reliable.

Unless you mean a 'stable release'. If that's what you're asking about, it means the basic versions of software aren't going to change for a set period of time. That is, you can count on things not changing very much for some period of time.

Rolling releases, or quick/interim releases, will see the underlying software change more often. You'll be on the cutting edge, using the newest packages with the newest versions. Things change more often.

 

[sofasurfer]

Thanks

 

[bob466]

Linux Mint is very stable but when a new version comes out it can contain bugs which are fixed over time...such is life.

 

[CaffeineAddict]

@sofasurfer
Stable and better don't mean same thing, whether some distro is "better" is highly subjective, e.g. who ever is using distro X will say X is the best, and person using Y distro will say the same for Y, so it's opinion based.

Stable distro is however the opposite of rolling-release distro, some are stable but not all.
Rolling-release means you get updates of packages as soon as they're released by their developer, this means higher possibility of new bugs in those packages.

But this is not the case with stable distro which relies on "stable" packages, that is, package versions which are known to be good, e.g. bug free as much as possible and well tested.

Thus advantage of stable distro is less bugs, less crashes of software or the OS and similar.
Disadvantage of stable distro however is outdated software.

 

[f33dm3bits]

We have some servers here that have uptimes of over 3500 days. (about 9 years)

I'm assuming those are running distributions that have been end of life for a while?

 

[MikeRocor]

I'm not exactly a "distro hopper" but I don't remember ever having used any distro that I would characterize as less than "stable" (*). I've had specific applications crash, but not bring the system down. I remember being flabbergasted once, when using Ubuntu a few years back, the terminal program crashed - not the program running -in- the terminal emulator but the terminal itself. (I think it was terminator, but wouldn't swear to that.)

I did recently crash a system by overrunning available memory while not having swap enabled but that's my bad.

*) Having said that about "stable", I have to add that I could count on the fingers of one hand the times I've had MS Windows (since Win2K) crash on me when I wasn't actively f?cking with it, so maybe I'm just lucky.

 

[dos2unix]

I'm assuming those are running distributions that have been end of life for a while?

Maybe a day or two Management is aware, but they won't let us upgrade. But it's only a couple.

 

[Brickwizard]

Management is aware, but they won't let us upgrade

by my experience its not the management but the accountants

 

[KGIII]

There are times when there's "business-necessary" software that won't work on updated hardware or software.

One of the benefits to OSS is that you can, if you choose to invest the resources, attempt to migrate that stuff to work on newer stuff. Though, yeah, it may very well require an investment.

 

[f33dm3bits]

Maybe a day or two Management is aware, but they won't let us upgrade. But it's only a couple.

The security team would be breathing down my back with a system with that many days uptime because of not having updated an updated kernel or other components that require a a restart or are you using something like kpatch/live patch?