you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 15 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Whoever equated "stable" with "inactive" is a fucking moron.

If your stable release can't handle proper updates over its stable content, then get a better stable distro. There's a reason why some distro trees are Enterprise and some are "Enterprise".

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    If your stable release can’t handle proper updates over its stable content, then get a better stable distro.

    It is not necessarily the distro. Apart from NVidia drivers breaking and breaking grub dual boot configurations, I had most problems with GNOME upgrades.

    But the key question is: Is it better to have rare, bigger changes, or frequent, smaller changes? For desktop and development, my experience slightly favours the latter. For servers, I had no problems with the Debian model.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    Depends on use case. The way I see it is that if its sensitive or requires specific software I want something stable. When first started woth linux I used Ubuntu things never really broke until the next LTS patch then I started getting programs that wouldn't update to the newest version, or the version I needed was only in the last LTS.

    With gaming nothing of value ever lives on a gaming rig, I expect for it to get messy (with app comp data, cache, proton varaints, numerous windows directories etc) to the point reinstalling feels easier, and I only ever need to download games from gog/steam. But with rolling release I actually see frequent updates for nvidia GPUs and I think they are making actual improvements more and more. I've never had an update break stuff on me like it has with Ubuntu has, but I haven't used a rolling release long enough or in the same way to get the feeling for what people mean by rolling releases are more likely to break your system.

  • source
  • parent