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 They are either to unstable or way to out of date.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)
Enjoying a stable OS?
Except, that older versions of desktop environments tend to be less stable…
Stable in the Linux world means that it doesn’t change often, not that it never has anything wrong with it. That means that if you come across a bug, it’s most likely well researched and has solutions. When you use a bleeding edge distro you’re left to your own troubleshooting skills or begging for help.
Stable means unchanging in this context.
No, stable for me means “it’s not buggy and broken”
That’s a you problem. Your interpretation is wrong.
Quoting from the Debian Manual:
Stable has a particular meaning with distros but I think the context here is using the plain English definition of the word.
We are talking about LTS distros, not about bridges. The context is pretty clear.
STABLE definition: 1. firmly fixed or not likely to move or change
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/stable
Yes, and that’s exactly the reason why I’d never recommend debian for a desktop
Just to be clear, the “reason” here is that your expectations are not correctly aligned with the project goals.
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.
Cutting edge versions aren’t stable either. You’re essentially a beta tester for new features that may end up in an LTS release.
I’d rather have an LTS release where things have generally been tested well enough to warrant an LTS release.
I’d say it depends and it’s mostly just a theory that applies in some cases (like with kernel, critical infrastructure, server software) but usually desktop stack in LTS is just stinky old, which doesn’t make it any more stable, in some cases less stable.
Usually desktop environments are locked to some old versions and in theory fixes should get applied by the distro maintainers. In practice, actual developers behind desktops long moved on and don’t support it, bugs can only be fixed by huge code rework and it can’t be easily applied on top of old version (or can introduce new bugs and require testing). You end up with bugs that were fixed in upstream like 2 years ago and you will only get it improved upon new LTS upgrade cycle.
For example, LTS absolutely sucks for Plasma, because for last few years, each version is less and less buggy. On Debian/Ubuntu you won’t even get current version as they release the new OS, let alone recent inprovement