I know the Debian project recommends against promoting the unstable Sid release for general (non-dev/maintainer) users, but IMO about as risky as running Arch Linux, i.e., quite safe.
Debian Sid is the main initial entry point for new packages and so a rolling release which only pauses for a bit once every two years during the freeze for the stable releases.
Compared to Arch Linux it has a few advantages, like e.g., it actually cares about recording exact and sane versioned break/depends/conflicts so upgrading a system after year(s) will work out just fine without getting ones hand dirty. Further they track and install the kernel under a correctly ABI versioned path, so you can pull an upgrade with a new kernel and then still load a module from the currently booted kernel just fine, no reboot required, same for libraries. I mean I like Arch Linux, don't get me wrong it's my second favorite distro for sure, but having to immediately reboot after most updates as otherwise half the programs or kernel functionality is unavailable is a bit of a nuisance.
> I know the Debian project recommends against promoting the unstable Sid release for general (non-dev/maintainer) users, but IMO about as risky as running Arch Linux, i.e., quite safe.
I used to use debian stable, then testing, then sid, then migrated to Arch and Arch has been definitely more stable than testing and sid. I never had big issues with Arch but Debian more than a few time gave me updates that entirely broke my system to the point of not booting anymore and not being able to fix it with a recovery USB
Same here but with Ubuntu and only using the "stable" version. Ubuntu updates have broken my systems over time many times since I started using it around version 9.04 or so, and stopped using it version 16 or 17. Started using Arch after that and the only breakages that have happened since then have been when I've been over-confident in major changes I'm making to my boot process. Never have a normal upgrade broken my system. The experience have been the same for both my desktop and laptop setups, and I'm starting to use Arch for my servers now too.
> I never had big issues with Arch but Debian more than a few time gave me updates that entirely broke my system to the point of not booting anymore and not being able to fix it with a recovery USB.
Ha, I have the exact opposite experience - one can get (un)lucky on any OS it seems..
> a rolling release which only pauses for a bit once every two years during the freeze for the stable releases
People say this a lot but I disagree. Debian Sid is not a rolling release.
Debian is a project that produces releases of Debian GNU/Linux. Those releases are then supported for many years. As a development tool for the production of those stable releases, Debian also has 'testing', 'unstable', and 'experimental'.
The key difference is that Sid is not a product for Debian. Debian makes no claim to support Sid. Occasionally it breaks, and that's just part of using it, too bad.
In contrast, for a true rolling release distribution like Arch, the rolling release is the product. It's not just a tool the distribution uses for the production of something else - indeed, Arch has no stable releases.
I don't say this as a criticism of Debian - to the contrary, I have used both distributions quite a bit. I just think it's a mistake to tell people Sid is rolling release. If you want a rolling release distribution, use Arch. Use Sid if you're a Debian developer and need to...otherwise I honestly can't find much of a reason to use Sid. When I'm on Debian and need to get newer packages, there are other ways to do this that don't involve turning your whole system over to the churn of constant package updates (e.g. backports.)
I dunno, I get that there's a distinction between what the product officially supports and doesn't, but if something breaks in sid, I would expect them to still want to fix it because that's the thing that will eventually become a release. It's just theoretically more likely to break in the first place because it is after all the unstable channel.
> there are other ways to do this that don't involve turning your whole system over to the churn of constant package updates
I mean, that's no different than Arch or any other rolling release distribution.
No, there is no way to have a stable system in Arch. They don’t recommend installing any new packages unless your entire system is up to date. There is also no stable way to get just security updates while leaving the rest of the system stable.
Eh. I used Debian Sid for a year, and regular updates broke it two times in that period. For regular users, that would be worse than the Windows 11 "telemetry".
Can confirm with my experience. I used it for three years, inbetween two stable releases during the switch from SysV init to systemd. It all fell apart quite bad with many things breaking. I switched to a different distro.
I hope the people from Vanilla OS do some QA before pushing packages.
While I like Debian and don't think running Sid is necessarily a bad thing, I think it's unfair to say as risky as Arch. Arch is the most stable system I've ever used, by far. Debian Sid has broken for me in the past, and I didn't even use it that long.
I am glad to hear this. The more things that are directly derived from Debian the better. It's one of the last respectable Linux distributions without vendor crapware and customisations stuffed in it by default.
> If you are just starting out on your Linux journey, save yourself (possibly many) years of varying woe, and go straight to Debian.
Debian is a great OS and still runs on some of my servers! However, what about the release/EOL cycle, which might affect some people's reasoning? Along the lines of: "I'll set this up and I want to keep it running reasonably for X years with unattended-upgrades."
Technically you do have Debian LTS, but it's never mentioned anywhere as prominently like Ubuntu LTS is, which feels a tad odd (because it works fine): https://www.debian.org/lts/
Of course, many looked in the direction of something like CentOS for this, or RHEL, or Rocky Linux or Alma Linux etc., which are supported for around 10 years usually. In my experience, DEB distros play more nicely with most of the software that I want to personally run, though.
The main point I should have included above is that Debian's installation and deployment of any given upstream package is generally better than other distributions (my opinion only, YMMV), especially when there are lots of dependencies.
I had that a while ago. MySQL in Ubuntu 10.04 LTS was a complete fuck up with loads of upstream bugs that weren't patched out. Unfortunately company policy was only Ubuntu with system packages.
Eventually I persuaded them to let me use CentOS 6. What they didn't know is they ended up running Debian stable for the next 7 years thanks to a pact with the other sysadmins. Eventually it all went to AWS and Amazon Linux which is basically a uniquely fucked up version of CentOS.
Really I'd rather run FreeBSD but no one wants to pay me to do that.
I'm using Arch on a couple of desktops and it's a rolling release with all the good and bad that comes from that. Based on my limited experience I'd say I like it as much as Debian. Lovely Debian. The one caveat I'd make is - Unless you start dipping heavily into the AUR. My guess - totally uninformed - is that's where most of people's problems with Arch start.
I like Arch and use it everywhere, but avoid anything manual with the AUR (shoutout to chaotic-aur). It gets so much hype but feels like a step down from PPAs in practice.
A typical Arch installation has exactly what you've put into it, no more and no less, as the setup forces you to decide what you want to put into it. It's in no way a beginner distribution, but not every distribution has to cater to the same crowd, which Arch is not afraid of making a choice to who they rather cater to.
As a professional, it's really simple (as in "not complex", not as in "easy to start using") and once you've understood your setup, troubleshooting becomes much easier if you have to do it.
I gave Vanilla OS an honest try last month, and my experience was nothing short of frustration. Both due to my inability to devote time to search through docs or issues and Vanilla OS' strange choices.
Pros:
- Probably the only Ubuntu based distro with vanilla Gnome.
- Distrobox OOB, can use any package manager.
Cons:
- No Nvidia drivers, my laptop failed to even boot the installer.
- Installing additional drivers is nothing but pain.
- Too vanilla for my taste, requires a lot of configuration to get to usable state (that other distros provide out of the box).
- Sandboxed apps provide more trouble than not.
- apx is slow, I'd rather stick to apt.
I then tried Manjaro Gnome which was a much, much better experience, everything just worked. Manjaro gets a lot of bad rep (I've been on the hate train too) but at least their defaults are sensible.
I tried VanillaOS only because of the Ubuntu base, because Ubuntu guarantees a stable system at the very least. I don't think I'd be able to recommend it to anyone though, the distro is very well-made, but I just can't find a justification for it.
Good. Debian is not perfect for sure, but it's not tied to the interests of a corporation. Also, Snap, which I find useful in a few cases, is entirely optional and not included by design.
Will be really interested to see how they progress with this. I know Mint has also been exploring a Debian-based version of their distro, but they explain it more as something to have in their back pocket in case Ubuntu is no longer a viable option at some point in the future.
I hear a lot that the work that Canonical puts into making Ubuntu a reliable, high quality desktop distro would be hard to replicate if distro builders were to move upstream, but I wonder if this is still as true in 2023.
The world has enough Ubuntu-based distros at this point, I think, and many of them just feel like re-skins that don't do enough to differentiate themselves.
Also, being based on Ubuntu means you are really trapped in their twice year release cycle, whereas building off of sid you could potentially do more frequent releases. I'm not personally a huge fan of rolling releases, but would love a distro that releases semi-frequently (2-3 months vs 6).
Quite a few comments pro and con for Debian Sid. My two cents worth: Sid aka Unstable for a reason. Some have said they have had unstable systems.
The resolution to to this is that one should subscribe to IRC or some of the Debian mailing lists. There the developers publish the fact that major changes are hitting Unstable.
If one stays away from Sid during those times, and perform an update once things have settled, a 'more stable' Unstable is realized.
I don't use Unstable, but I do run Testing (currently AKA BookWorm), and I act in a similar manner. There are breaking changes sometimes. I perform no updates at those times. In addition, I have to check packages.debian.org sometimes as specific packages might be broken, and it will indicate what/when change may occur.
I've been on Zorin for 2 years and I don't think any other distro has been able to convince me to switch yet. The stable and polished UI of Zorin is unmatched.
> I like it, but I think I'm going to have to figure out an Nvidia driver situation, and (maybe related) I can't use an external monitor, either.
Zorin is one of the few distros that boots on my laptop. The rest like Ubuntu aren't even able to reach the installer because they don't have Nvidia drivers. They just reboot.
I haven't had any Nvidia issues ever on Zorin, it's pretty much perfect out of the box. The wine additions, flatpak integration, snap as a choice and not force, the super polished and modern UI, the stability and the focus on the user instead of enterprise is why I stick to Zorin.
I see no reason to use Ubuntu anymore, Zorin is just that but better.
Finally someone who has the same issue as me. May i ask, what specs you are running? PopOS also works for me, but not very smooth. Im downloading Zorin as im typing.
>Vanilla OS as an immutable and atomic version of Ubuntu Linux
what does that mean? I checked their home page and FAQ as well, where they repeat it but also don't explain it. It makes me think of it installing itself on your hard drive, and then immediately marking it read-only, never to be changed again
Going to https://vanillaos.org/ and scrolling down, I encounter a section with the title "Immutable.." which seems to be what you're looking for?
> ..but also not.
> Vanilla OS is an immutable operating system, core parts of the system are locked down to prevent unwanted changes and corruption from third-party applications or a faulty update. Some paths are still writable, such as the home and configurations directories, this allows the user to keep their files and ensure the normal functioning of applications.
> Core components are only updated via controlled and atomic transactions, which are applied only on success and made available on reboot.
> Need to install a component in the core system? No problem, you can open a transactional shell at any time, make your changes and let the system apply them automatically!
From my experience with immutable Linux (NixOS), this is probably a safer decision than you might think. Atomic upgrades and rollbacks go a really long way to mitigating the annoyances of running a bleeding edge, rolling release distro.
Debian Sid is the main initial entry point for new packages and so a rolling release which only pauses for a bit once every two years during the freeze for the stable releases.
Compared to Arch Linux it has a few advantages, like e.g., it actually cares about recording exact and sane versioned break/depends/conflicts so upgrading a system after year(s) will work out just fine without getting ones hand dirty. Further they track and install the kernel under a correctly ABI versioned path, so you can pull an upgrade with a new kernel and then still load a module from the currently booted kernel just fine, no reboot required, same for libraries. I mean I like Arch Linux, don't get me wrong it's my second favorite distro for sure, but having to immediately reboot after most updates as otherwise half the programs or kernel functionality is unavailable is a bit of a nuisance.