hinto wrote:Those distros were even older at the time (~ 1 year ago). Any kernel later (newer) than 2.6.27 seemed to work fine. If you update the kernel in a "released" distro, you run the risk of breaking your entire system. Presumably with a rolling release yo have the latest software and kernel.
xenobrain wrote:II've been running Arch Linux on my home desktop for six years.
Take a look at how PCLInuxOS is built and updated.
Edit: Today I got Firefox 3.6.7, Thunderbird 3.1.1 and K3b 2.0.80 just to name a few of the updates I received. These apps were tested, then put on the pass server for 8 or 9 hours, then pushed out to the main repos. I very rarely have any problems and when I do they are very quickly resolved in a matter of hours. I had a very minor issue with saving images about a week ago, I was given a resolution by the Lead Developer minutes after I posted the problem, now that's support! This is clearly a perfect example of how a rolling release should be.
zerozero wrote:I've running Mandriva Cooker (the distro's development branch) for nearly one year now, and Cooker is at the same time rolling release and cutting edge, and that suits what i want. You may ask if Cooker is all that why am i here and bother to have Mint installed? Because Mint is the safe place, the one i can trust if i need something done. Cooker sometimes is broken or hardly usable, but is very funny and in there we can see the "future" -today i began to receive the updates for KDE 4.6
Alongside with Mint is the most user-friend distro i know, and i know a few
linuxviolin wrote:And this post, like that by viking777 above, once more show well why a rolling release can be problematic and not a good design for "real" work. "funny" etc, ok, great but not a "safe place"...
zerozero wrote:May not be rock solid, but i dare to say it's more stable than the Ubuntu stable releases.
linuxviolin wrote:xenobrain wrote:II've been running Arch Linux on my home desktop for six years.
Arch Linux, or the art of making even more difficult than Slackware...
adrianx wrote:Arch has been good to me for over a year now. I update almost daily and sometimes even more than once a day.
adrianx wrote:It seems that it is mostly people with very little experience that make statements like that..... or people that refuse to read the manual (for some stupid reason).
adrianx wrote:Arch, in my opinion, has some of the best documentation out there (and I don't mean just pretty) ...
thenewguy wrote:I often wonder why people run Arch. It seems to have a very small, but vocal, group of users. Honestly, it took me longer to skim through the install documentation than it usually takes me to install a distro. Sure, the documentation is good, but I much prefer to use a system where I don't need the docs just to get the thing running. Which is why I like Mint. A nice, stable release supported for three years where everything is simple.
axel668 wrote:Arch is much more than a distribution - Arch is a state of mind. Arch is not about quick results, it's about THE WAY you do things
axel668 wrote:In the months using Arch I learned more about how Linux works than in years of Mandrake and Ubuntu before. Besides it feels really good when you got your desktop environment running for the 1st time
Robin wrote:I toyed with PCLinuxOS for a bit because I liked the idea of rolling release. It's easy enough using Synaptic. Just Reload > Mark all upgrades > Apply. That is the way they insist is the only safe way to do it.
My problem is the all-or-nothing approach doesn't suit me at all! I need to be able to choose which updates to accept. Sometimes the old kernel works and a new one borks something. So much stuff breaks after updating even selectively, let alone upgrading everything, every time.
Too scary for this kid!
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 4 guests