Linux

WRT rolling realeases

There is also openSuSE Tumbleweed. There is a good number of software (at least for standard openSuSE), and package management via zypper/YaST is good. It is relatively new, though.
 
Last edited:
I've never used Rawhide, but it's like Tumbleweed, except for Fedora.

There's also Linux Mint Debian Edition. A new version came out a month or two ago so there won't be much to update making now the time to jump into that.

Also, opensuse 12.1 is out.
 
Alan said:
I've never used Rawhide, but it's like Tumbleweed, except for Fedora.

There's also Linux Mint Debian Edition. A new version came out a month or two ago so there won't be much to update making now the time to jump into that.

Also, opensuse 12.1 is out.
Click to expand...

Google says (or rather, wikipedia says) that Rawhide is the development tree of Fedora. Not really a rolling release, since it isn't meant as a stable distro.

Good info though. Ubuntu support forum, eat your heart out.
 
By the way, wrt a feed reader:

I completely overlooked what was so abundantly clear that I overlooked it... wait, that went wrong.

Any way, after doing some stunting in Liferea, I found out that double-clicking the enclosure downloads it to a specific (and easily specified) folder. One folder without subdivision for the different feeds, but that isn't a problem, since I place the files in different folders any way.

Not that my search for a good combo has stopped, but for the moment I have a so-rtof-lution.
 
What is a rolling release? I can guess, but you seem to have a specific meaning.

I find I install (/home on a sep partition, so it all mostly carries-on) by 'wipe and start again' from iso files I burn to disk. I upgrade maybe once every two or three years. Sometimes I jump clear away from a distro like from Fedora to Ubuntu.
 
Donn said:
What is a rolling release? I can guess, but you seem to have a specific meaning.

I find I install (/home on a sep partition, so it all mostly carries-on) by 'wipe and start again' from iso files I burn to disk. I upgrade maybe once every two or three years. Sometimes I jump clear away from a distro like from Fedora to Ubuntu.
Click to expand...


A distro with a rolling release model releases upgrades to individual packages as they become available. This contrasts with distros using the standard release model, where upgrades to individual packages are accumulated and eventually packaged into an upgrade of the complete distribution. An example of the latter is Fedora, which releases a complete system upgrade every six months, with attendant increments to the Fedora version number: Fedora 6, Fedora 7, etc.

In contrast, Arch, which employs the rolling release model, issues upgrades to specific packages every day. The result is that Arch is continuously upgraded, and so there is no such thing as Arch version number X.

Jay
 
Last edited:
Re rolling releases. Thanks, I had not heard of that.

What happens when a single update in some library breaks a bunch of stuff?
It sounds like testing each 'roll' before rolling it out might be close to impossible since people have different apps installed in differing combinations and on differing hardware.

Tricky stuff.
 
Bram Kaandorp said:
I'm also considering Fuduntu, but it is still very new (relative to Ubuntu and even Linux Mint), so the availability of software might be a bit limited.
Click to expand...


:confused:

It's Linux. It will run any and all software that any other distro will run, provided you have all the dependencies covered.
 
My objections to linux is that I can't get it to run an internet dongle and "Nem Id" the security login for my bank and public offices.

That means that I have to reboot from Ubuntu to windows to see my bank account or get on the net when away from home. :(
 
Donn said:
Re rolling releases. Thanks, I had not heard of that.

What happens when a single update in some library breaks a bunch of stuff?
It sounds like testing each 'roll' before rolling it out might be close to impossible since people have different apps installed in differing combinations and on differing hardware.
Click to expand...

Arch's database of dependencies is rock solid. If a new libxyz is released, then they rebuild all the packages that use libxyz and release upgrades of them along with libxyz. For major upgrades, they first release the upgraded packages to a Testing repository, for users running the testing version of Arch. They work the bugs out there before releasing it to the full user base.
 
jt512 said:
Arch's database of dependencies is rock solid. If a new libxyz is released, then they rebuild all the packages that use libxyz and release upgrades of them along with libxyz. For major upgrades, they first release the upgraded packages to a Testing repository, for users running the testing version of Arch. They work the bugs out there before releasing it to the full user base.
Click to expand...

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pacman
Q: An update to package XYZ broke my system!
A: Arch Linux is a rolling-release cutting-edge distribution. Package updates are available as soon as they are deemed stable enough for general use. However, updates sometimes require user intervention: configuration files may need to be updated, optional dependencies may change, etc.

Sounds kind of like debian testing. ;-)

Anyhow, sounds like an interesting distro. If I wasn't already so attached debian, I might look into it.

Aside from being more current then debian (stable) due to rolling release, any other major differences that you think worth pointing out ?
 
TheL8Elvis said:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pacman
Q: An update to package XYZ broke my system!
A: Arch Linux is a rolling-release cutting-edge distribution. Package updates are available as soon as they are deemed stable enough for general use. However, updates sometimes require user intervention: configuration files may need to be updated, optional dependencies may change, etc.

Sounds kind of like debian testing. ;-)

Anyhow, sounds like an interesting distro. If I wasn't already so attached debian, I might look into it.

Aside from being more current then debian (stable) due to rolling release, any other major differences that you think worth pointing out ?
Click to expand...

I've read good things about Linux Mint Debian Edition [LMDE] (yes, based on Debian, so a good transition).

I don't know how large the differences between Debian and LMDE are (or between LMDE and Ubuntu in my case), but I can imagine that the apt system would be the same.
 
Pardus has an extension to its package manager called Pisiyap that seems to take all the messing around out of compiling and installing apps that are not found in the repositories.

It is rather torturously explained through thirty minutes of on screen typing by someone I suspect shy of their spoken English in this YT video:


If I stick with this distro as it seems I will, I probably should give something back by helping out with the English wiki entries.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pacman
Q: An update to package XYZ broke my system!
A: Arch Linux is a rolling-release cutting-edge distribution. Package updates are available as soon as they are deemed stable enough for general use. However, updates sometimes require user intervention: configuration files may need to be updated, optional dependencies may change, etc.

Sounds kind of like debian testing. ;-)

Anyhow, sounds like an interesting distro. If I wasn't already so attached debian, I might look into it.

Aside from being more current then debian (stable) due to rolling release, any other major differences that you think worth pointing out ?
Click to expand...

I'm not familiar enough with Debian to compare it with Arch. The main features of Arch are that it is bleeding edge, clean and simple, and flexible as to scale. I don't care much about the bleeding edge part, but the clean and simple, and flexibility aspects are wonderful.

A base Arch install includes the kernel and a basic set of libraries and utilities; no X server, much less a window manager or desktop. For my server, I added mysql, Apache, and cups, and that was about it. On the other hand, I have all the software I need on my laptop, but no more. For instance, I have three desktop managers (Xmonad, my favorite; Openbox; and Compiz-fusion), but no window manager, such as Gnome or KDE; only two editors (vim and emacs, the latter left over from before I knew better); etc.

The clean and simple part is harder to describe. Firstly, the installation (which needless to say is non-GUI) walks you through a basic set of system configuration files, which you edit to suit your needs (in fact, little editing is needed by most users, but it's important to understand what these files are for, in case you need them in the future). Second, Arch uses a simpler system of managing daemons than Ubuntu and Fedora. Third, it is considered poor practice to install unpackaged software. In the rare event that you can't find an application you need in the official or community repositories, you're encouraged to assemple it into package and install it by using Pacman. This keeps your system clean and makes later uninstallation or upgrading easy. Finally, unlike other distros, when a shared library gets upgraded, all packages that use the library are upgraded. Thus you avoid littering your system with multiple versions of shared libraries and their attendant web of symlinks.
 
Last edited:
jt512 said:
I'm not familiar enough with Debian to compare it with Arch. The main features of Arch are that it is bleeding edge, clean and simple, and flexible as to scale. I don't care much about the bleeding edge part, but the clean and simple, and flexibility aspects are wonderful.

A base Arch install includes the kernel and a basic set of libraries and utilities; no X server, much less a window manager or desktop. For my server, I added mysql, Apache, and cups, and that was about it. On the other hand, I have all the software I need on my laptop, but no more. For instance, I have three desktop managers (Xmonad, my favorite; Openbox; and Compiz-fusion), but no window manager, such as Gnome or KDE; only two editors (vim and emacs, the latter left over from before I knew better); etc.

The clean and simple part is harder to describe. Firstly, the installation (which needless to say is non-GUI) walks you through a basic set of system configuration files, which you edit to suit your needs (in fact, little editing is needed by most users, but it's important to understand what these files are for, in case you need them in the future). Second, Arch uses a simpler system of managing daemons than Ubuntu and Fedora. Third, it is considered poor practice to install unpackaged software. In the rare event that you can't find an application you need in the official or community repositories, you're encouraged to assemple it into package and install it by using Pacman. This keeps your system clean and makes later uninstallation or upgrading easy. Finally, unlike other distros, when a shared library gets upgraded, all packages that use the library are upgraded. Thus you avoid littering your system with multiple versions of shared libraries and their attendant web of symlinks.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the overview.

I'll stick with my initial impression:Sounds kind of like debian testing. I may have to fire it up in a VM and give it a whirl, but not so keen on having to learn the syntax of one more different package manager.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Thanks for the overview.

I'll stick with my initial impression:Sounds kind of like debian testing. I may have to fire it up in a VM and give it a whirl, but not so keen on having to learn the syntax of one more different package manager.
Click to expand...

Although it might sound like a testing version, there is a clear difference.

A testing version is not intended to be stable at all, it is meant to be used to find out whether a program is stable or nor (from what I can gather).

A rolling release is intended to be stable, even though it might not always be that way.

Another difference is that a testing version is not intended for consumer use.

I hope that clears it up.
 
Bram Kaandorp said:
Although it might sound like a testing version, there is a clear difference.

A testing version is not intended to be stable at all, it is meant to be used to find out whether a program is stable or nor (from what I can gather).

A rolling release is intended to be stable, even though it might not always be that way.

Another difference is that a testing version is not intended for consumer use.

I hope that clears it up.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I understand what a rolling release is. And the description of arch sounds very similar to Debian testing. You may want to look into the differences between Debian stable,testing,unstable,and experimental if you are not familiar with them and want to understand better why I make the comparison. I could go on and on about it, but I am sure google will do a best job if you wanted to know:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom