Linux

48310 readers

645 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

So now what distro are we running for LTS desktops? (lemmy.zip)

submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip to c/linux@lemmy.ml

84 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Ubuntu has too many problems for me to want to run it. However, it has occurred to me that there aren't a lot of distros that are like the Ubuntu LTS.

Basic requirements for a LTS:

at least 2 years of support
semi recent versions of applications like Chrome and Firefox (might consider flatpak)
a stable experience that isn't buggy
fast security updates

Distros considered:

Debian (stable)
Rocky Linux
openSUSE
Cent OS stream
Fedora

As far as I can tell none of the options listed are quite suitable. They are either to unstable or way to out of date. I like Rocky Linux but it doesn't seem to be desktop focused as far as I can tell. I would use Debian but Debian doesn't have the greatest security defaults. (No selinux profiles out of the box)

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

[–] Presi300@lemmy.world -5 points 6 months ago (2 children)

No, stable for me means "it's not buggy and broken"

[–] SpaceCadet@feddit.nl 12 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

That's a you problem. Your interpretation is wrong.

Quoting from the Debian Manual:

This is what Debian's Stable name means: that, once released, the operating system remains relatively unchanging over time.

[–] wyrmroot@programming.dev -3 points 6 months ago (2 children)

a stable experience that isn’t buggy

Stable has a particular meaning with distros but I think the context here is using the plain English definition of the word.

[–] SpaceCadet@feddit.nl 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

We are talking about LTS distros, not about bridges. The context is pretty clear.

[–] Shareni@programming.dev 1 points 6 months ago

STABLE definition: 1. firmly fixed or not likely to move or change

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/stable

[–] Presi300@lemmy.world -5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yes, and that's exactly the reason why I'd never recommend debian for a desktop

[–] rezifon@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

Just to be clear, the "reason" here is that your expectations are not correctly aligned with the project goals.

[–] LeFantome@programming.dev 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I am not going to say that you are wrong. Make your own choices.

For words to be useful though, they have to mean the same thing for the person sharing them and the person receiving them. Definitions matter.

In the Linux community, “stable” means not changing. It is not a statement about quality or reliability. The others words you used, “buggy” and “broken”, are better quality references.

Again, you do you. But expect “the community” to reinforce their definitions because common understanding is essential if something like Lemmy is going to work.