Binary incompatibility of Linux distributions

[anthony baldwin]

Michael M. Moore wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 11:09 -0400, anthony baldwin wrote:
>> Dotan Cohen wrote:
>>>> Everything Linux is a blinking moving target. There has to be a
>>>> compromise and if you do not like that, go install Debian stable. They
>>>> don't compromise...they just make a release after a decade or two.
>>>>
>>> While this comes off as "if you don't like it, then leave" it is
>>> actually sound advice. To those who need a rock-solid distro, Debian
>>> stable or CentOS is the place to be. Ubuntu is not.
>>>
>> Personally, I find it odd that Ubuntu, being supposedly aimed at helping 
>> the Windows world to Linux, doesn't focus more on stability and less on 
>> cutting edge.
>> PCLinuxOS is another good distro for those more concerned with stability.
>>
>> I'm considering a move to Debian or Arch, myself...I don't know...
> 
> If you're looking for stability, I wouldn't recommend Arch Linux.  Mind
> you, it's a wonderful system and a wonderful platform, as much a
> "meta-distribution" as a regular distro.  But stable it's not.  Arch is
> committed to being bleeding-edge, always, and regularly introduces
> packages that will break things on your next 'pacman -Syu.'  Usually,
> there is some warning about this, but not always, especially if you
> happen to be in the first wave of users who update and then find out
> something or another broke unexpectedly.  To use Arch as your regular
> desktop distro, you need to keep up with the announcements on the main
> site and the forums and be prepared.
> 
> Arch is a great distro for people who know what they're doing, know what
> they want, or want to learn more about how to bend Linux to their will.
> It's lean and uncomplicated, especially in comparison with the
> complexity of Ubuntu and other Debian-based distros.  And its package
> management is almost on par with apt, though it doesn't have nearly as
> many pre-built packages as Debian or Ubuntu.  But it's emphatically not
> a distro with a focus on stability.
> 
> I wonder if Slackware might be a better fit for what you want.  It
> combines the simplified BSD-style init of Arch Linux with a stable
> platform.  It also has about the most knowledgeable Linux users around
> -- the old saying, "If you want help with Red Hat, as a Red Hat user; if
> you want help with Debian, ask a Debian user; if you want help with
> Linux, ask a Slackware user" rings true still.
> 


I've just installed Debian on my experimental box, and am playing with 
it.  It seems possible, quite likely, even, that I will soon be 
installing it on my main production box, too.

/tony

-- 

http://www.photodharma.com
art & photos | tony baldwin

http://www.uuchaliceart.com
Unitarian Universalist art.