YouTuber Brodie Robertson: Most Stable Linux Distros Are Really Semi Rolling.
- Thread starter Tolkem
- Start date
captain-sensible
Well-Known Member
I've seen a couple of his youtube presentations - one was when i was researching install of Vanilla Arch . His presentation was about the "newish" guided script that now comes with the Vanilla Arch iso.
he absolutely slated it ; i've tried installing Arch using the guided script 3 times and it was a no go each time; on a spare laptop this time I succeeded with a manual install , command by command . i guess i will give the guy some credence . He's sort of on steroids or maybe i'm just getting old .
I' ll have a look at the video ..
he absolutely slated it ; i've tried installing Arch using the guided script 3 times and it was a no go each time; on a spare laptop this time I succeeded with a manual install , command by command . i guess i will give the guy some credence . He's sort of on steroids or maybe i'm just getting old .
I' ll have a look at the video ..
captain-sensible
Well-Known Member
i watched it the main issue was "streaming" his output rate , and my standard input . I suppose i could tweak the video settings and slow it down !
Arch is a rolling "release" because from pacman I update ; so whats Slackware current ? I can do the same using slackpkg from any install of current and update to most recent(in theory) .
As for stability with Arch - rock solid so far . I quite like the idea of semi rolling. Also he just confirmed that you can't leave it too long to update. It was the same for Slackware current. At one point PAM was put in the main tree; you couldn't just use slackpkg and hope for the best. You had to install specific pks cracklib PAM , maybe some config then use slackpkg . I saw this on the changelogs for slackware current along the lines of : do this first if you don't want ot be locked out of your system. So in slackware current you have to keep up and pay attention. I don't have to do that with Arch but can't leave it too long ! I have cut out what I don't need to reduce update amount; also i can control it a little. I got rid of FF so that doesn't come up with -Syu . I have brave browser installed from AUR manually and i manually update, giving me some control of update load
Arch is a rolling "release" because from pacman I update ; so whats Slackware current ? I can do the same using slackpkg from any install of current and update to most recent(in theory) .
As for stability with Arch - rock solid so far . I quite like the idea of semi rolling. Also he just confirmed that you can't leave it too long to update. It was the same for Slackware current. At one point PAM was put in the main tree; you couldn't just use slackpkg and hope for the best. You had to install specific pks cracklib PAM , maybe some config then use slackpkg . I saw this on the changelogs for slackware current along the lines of : do this first if you don't want ot be locked out of your system. So in slackware current you have to keep up and pay attention. I don't have to do that with Arch but can't leave it too long ! I have cut out what I don't need to reduce update amount; also i can control it a little. I got rid of FF so that doesn't come up with -Syu . I have brave browser installed from AUR manually and i manually update, giving me some control of update load
Well he's kinda wrong. Debian stable is absolute. The only updates are critical ones and security. They didn't even bring the wallpaper changing patch from upstream into backports. And FYI, backports is basically what he's talking about; stable core, updated software. Look, it's still out of date, but that is because backports are scrutinised.
As for rolling Debian (testing), it gets security patches last (use sid for security on a testing system). So, rolling advantage is per distro.
The claim about you having to eventually reinstall ain't quite accurate either. At least with Debian, which supports stable, oldstable, and oldoldstable. That gives you nearly 8 years (based on their release cycle) of stability/support. Plus, big plus, you can upgrade from say 9 to 10 with apt. When a new stable is released, the Debian team actually provide upgrade instructions to minimise downtime, if you wanna upgrade (I prefer fresh installs).
Now about Arch, he's right because it's been a talking point of system breaks easily but system fixes easily. And the bottom line is that's right. The breakage and fixes often happen between the user's last update and current one. Obviously it isn't for server use and can even introduce vulnerabilities that stable systems don't experience.
If you wanna talk semi-rolling, Manjaro is the best example. It is mostly new, but more vetted than Arch, even stable.
The point is he spent 12 minutes bringing nothing useful/new to the table other than an RFC about naming.
Bottom line is stability and security are distro dependant. Debian gives me both. I get DSAs the moment a vulnerability pops up. It's stable, even frustratingly. But that's the beauty of building from source: apps align with your system usually because apps are built against it. And there are always appimages to get the latest without updating any of your system because those new libs they my break stuff are embedded in a portable FS inside the appimage. In short Debian stable works great.
That said, most users would prefer Mint and some, mainly gamers, Manjaro.
So, yes, plenty contrapoints of what's said and many examples of this thing he wants to see already existing.
I run Debian on my main machine, Manjaro on my laptop, an will be running Arch on my dedicated retro gaming rig I'm scrapping together from used parts.
I think most of this it preference. What problems you feel are the lesser of the two on a per-use basis.
I hope I don't sound elitist. lol.
As for rolling Debian (testing), it gets security patches last (use sid for security on a testing system). So, rolling advantage is per distro.
The claim about you having to eventually reinstall ain't quite accurate either. At least with Debian, which supports stable, oldstable, and oldoldstable. That gives you nearly 8 years (based on their release cycle) of stability/support. Plus, big plus, you can upgrade from say 9 to 10 with apt. When a new stable is released, the Debian team actually provide upgrade instructions to minimise downtime, if you wanna upgrade (I prefer fresh installs).
Now about Arch, he's right because it's been a talking point of system breaks easily but system fixes easily. And the bottom line is that's right. The breakage and fixes often happen between the user's last update and current one. Obviously it isn't for server use and can even introduce vulnerabilities that stable systems don't experience.
If you wanna talk semi-rolling, Manjaro is the best example. It is mostly new, but more vetted than Arch, even stable.
The point is he spent 12 minutes bringing nothing useful/new to the table other than an RFC about naming.
Bottom line is stability and security are distro dependant. Debian gives me both. I get DSAs the moment a vulnerability pops up. It's stable, even frustratingly. But that's the beauty of building from source: apps align with your system usually because apps are built against it. And there are always appimages to get the latest without updating any of your system because those new libs they my break stuff are embedded in a portable FS inside the appimage. In short Debian stable works great.
That said, most users would prefer Mint and some, mainly gamers, Manjaro.
So, yes, plenty contrapoints of what's said and many examples of this thing he wants to see already existing.
I run Debian on my main machine, Manjaro on my laptop, an will be running Arch on my dedicated retro gaming rig I'm scrapping together from used parts.
I think most of this it preference. What problems you feel are the lesser of the two on a per-use basis.
I hope I don't sound elitist. lol.
captain-sensible
Well-Known Member
which way are you going to install Arch script - guided , archfi script or manual ?
