Linux

48328 readers

659 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

nooter692@lemmy.ml

MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz

157

Longtime Arch user, first time Debian enjoyer (lemmy.world)

submitted 8 months ago by bigmclargehuge@lemmy.world to c/linux@lemmy.ml

72 comments fedilink hide all child comments

As the title says, I've been using various flavours of Arch basically since I started with Linux. My very first Linux experience was with Ubuntu, but I quickly switched to Manjaro, then Endeavour, then plain Arch. Recently I've done some spring cleaning, reinstalling my OS's. I have a pretty decent laptop that I got for school a couple years ago (Lenovo Ideapad 3/AMD). Since I'm no longer in school, I decided to do something different with it.

So, I spent Thursday evening installing Debian 12 Gnome. I have to say, so far, it has been an absolute treat to use. This is the first time I've given Gnome a real chance, and now I see what all the hype is about. It's absolutely perfect for a laptop. The UI is very pleasing out of the box, the gestures work great on a trackpad, it's just so slick in a way KDE isn't (at least by default). The big thing though, is the peace of mind. Knowing that I'm on a fairly basic, extremely stable distro gives me confidence that I'll never be without my computer due to a botched update if, say, I take it on a trip. I'm fine with running the risks of a rolling distro at home where I can take an afternoon to troubleshoot, but being a laptop I just need it to be bulletproof. I also love the simplicity of apt compared to pacman. Don't get me wrong, pacman is fantastically powerful and slick once you're used to it, but apt is nice just for the fact that everything is in plain English.

I know this is sort of off topic, I just wanted to share a bit of my experience about the switch. I don't do much distro-hopping, so ended up being really pleasantly surprised.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Deckweiss@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago (4 children)

The big thing though, is the peace of mind. Knowing that I’m on a fairly basic, extremely stable distro gives me confidence that I’ll never be without my computer due to a botched update if, say, I take it on a trip.

This I find a very weird statement. Perosnally I use arch on a laptop for work and I never ran into the scenario of not having a working laptop always ready.

I have btrfs snapshots pre and post update that I can roll back to
I update my packages every friday in the last hour of work, where I can roll back or do the required manual intervention in peace
When I have an important time period where I judt don't want to deal with it, I just don't update anything. At some point I had everything out of date for 7 months due to a big and stressful project. Once it was over, I updated as usual.
Nothing ever broke since I started doing it like this and following the arch news.

And for that I get way more packages, no missing out on the newest features and it is way easier to install anything not in the repos/AUR by creating my own PKGBUILD so that I have updates - than manually installing it on debian from make and it never updating.

[–] degrix@lemmy.hqueue.dev 18 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I think point number three is likely what Deckwise is getting at. Every distro is stable when you don’t update it. I generally measure the stability of a distro on the ability to blindly update without taking out something mission critical.

[–] Deckweiss@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I think point 3 is an extreme measure because I make my living with that device. If it ran debian/ubuntu, I would still apply all the above points due to that circumstance.

I also use arch on my gaming pc, where I update blindly (still with btrfs snapshots) and the only time in the 6 years of that archlinux installs lifetime when it didn't function afterwards was during the grub update.

I used ubuntu for 2 years (and then plain debian for another 2 years) before arch, and for me it broke on every release version upgrade (do-release-upgrade). So once every half year. (And yes I followed the proper procedure. And yes it may be better now compared to back then.) As I found no way of fixing it, but I wanted the newest release, I reinstalled ubuntu/debian every 6 months, while keeping the home dir.

I guess if you are fine with staying on LTS for 5 years, it is indeed very stable, but if you want to have up to date features - arch was way more stable than Ubuntu or Debian in my personal experience.

[–] dgriffith@aussie.zone 9 points 8 months ago

Heavy debian testing / unstable user for over a decade here. I have never had to worry about doing 1/2/3 and I let my package manager do whatever it wants whenever it wants.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Imagine being able to turn on automatic updates and nothing breaking or requiring rollback. That's Debian Stable. 🫠