[xubuntu-users] 2014 Rolling release?

James Freer jessejazza3.uk at gmail.com
Tue Jan 29 11:31:06 UTC 2013

On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Ralf Mardorf
<ralf.mardorf at alice-dsl.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-01-28 at 23:30 -0800, bob wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 01:48:58 +0100
>> "Ralf Mardorf" <ralf.mardorf at alice-dsl.net> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 01:31:15 +0100, bob <bob.currie at bulkley.net> wrote:
>> > > Generally as time goes by bugs get fixed and systems improve in
>> > > stability.  This is less likely to be the case with a rolling release
>> > > model-the new versions will have new bugs.
>> >
>> > This is completely nonsense. Add a testing repository, ask the community
>> > to sign off packages and you get the most stable distro possible, a good
>> > example for this practice is Arch Linux.
>> >
>> > The drawback for rolling releases are exotic and very seldom transitions,
>> > Arch Linux and Ubuntu are good examples for this.
>> >
>> > The transition to upstart by Ubuntu didn't cause serious issues, but the
>> > transition to systemd for Arch Linux did cause a lot of trouble. But how
>> > often do we have such extreme transitions? I can't remember a second
>> > transition like that.
>> >
>> > Be aware that I'm a Ubuntu user, but it doesn't help us to claim something
>> > that is nonsense. For good reasons I'm using other distros too.
>> Interestingly, as much as you consider what I wrote to be nonsense, I consider your reply to be the same.
>> As for adding a testing repository, are you suggesting using Debian testing repositories in Debian Stable?  Doesn't Debian recommend not doing that because things break? Certainly I've seen forum posts saying not to do so-for example http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?t=15612 and http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/debian-26/debian-testing-vs-debian-stable-with-testing-repositories-708263/.
>> I can't speak to Arch, never having used it.  I've mostly used Debian Stable (solid as a rock except when I made the mistake of mixing repositories as you seem to be suggesting,) Debian Testing (as advertised it would break from time to time-not too frequently, but enough to require more work than would have been suitable in the office,) Mint, Ubuntu, Xubuntu and Mandriva.  The LTS releases of Ubuntu 8.04, Mint (based on 10.04) and now Xubuntu 12.04 have been solid for me-though I've been conservative and don't install on a machine that needs to be stable (for example, on my secrataries' computers or my wife's computer) for a while after release, usually leaving a month or so for bugs to get ironed out.
> Debian is a "development rolling release", it's nor a rolling release,
> only unstable is rolling and unstable is not for production
> environments.
> Arch is a rolling release and if you use Arch as a production
> environment, you will not add the testing repository. Arch is much more
> stable than Ubuntu ever has been.
> I'm experienced in using Ubuntu, Debian and Arch. I know what I'm
> talking about. You don't know what you are talking about. Period.
> You might notice that I'm writing from the Ubuntu Studio LTS now.
> There's nothing to say against the LTS, excepted from some minor issues,
> however your claims are untrue, you spread fear, uncertainty and doubt
> against other distros that do fulfill your requirements more than Ubuntu
> does.
> No doubt about it, Arch Linux also has drawbacks, as I already pointed
> out, there is no distro that fit to most users. Who are those ominous
> most users?
> No hard feelings. I wont ending it in a flame war. If people think there
> is one distro that is the best on this planet, they should think so.
> That anything is the best, is against all life experiences. Most humans
> don't fit to the "most humans" group, that's another wisdom, that is
> important regarding to this thread.
> Regards,
> Ralf

Obviously the term "rolling release" is open to interpretation -
Ubuntu are talking about a main release  every two years at the LTS
time and point release every six months.

Maybe i am incorrect on the terminology but i struggle with how Centos
can be stable if one is using different repos and manually activating
updating - setting priorities seems a very dodgy thing to me. Seems
Centos is only stable for their own repo which is for servers... for a
desktop i don't think i'd want to take the risk.


More information about the xubuntu-users mailing list