[OT] Good or best Linux distro?

[H. S. Teoh]

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 11:51:57AM +0000, John Colvin wrote:
> On Friday, 24 January 2014 at 16:14:15 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> >On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 06:01:33AM -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> >[...]
> >>While Linux isn't my primary desktop system, the desktop Linux stuff
> >>I do work with has gone from Ubuntu -> Debian -> Mint.
> >>
> >>I left Ubuntu because Canonical was starting to piss me off, partly
> >>because of their apparent obsession with being basically just an OSX
> >>clone. So I went upstream to Debian. Still run Debian on my server,
> >>but I abandoned it as a desktop OS partly because so much of it is
> >>out of date literally before they even release it, and also because
> >>once they do get a newer version of something, there's a fair chance
> >>you can't actually get it without upgrading the whole OS because not
> >>everything actually gets into backports
> >[...]
> >
> >You should just run off Debian/unstable (or if you're chicken,
> >testing).  I do.  In spite of the name, it's actually already as
> >stable as your typical desktop OS with its typical occasional random
> >breakage.  Stable is really for those people who are running mission
> >critical servers that when the OS dies, people die. That's why it's
> >always "out of date", 'cos everything must be tested thoroughly
> >first. For desktop users you don't need that kind of stability, and
> >generally you don't want to wait that long to get software upgrades.
> >So just use unstable or testing.  I've been living off unstable for
> >almost 15 years and have only had 1 or 2 occasions when things broke
> >in a major way. That's saying a lot considering how many times I've
> >had to reformat and reinstall Windows (supposedly a stable release
> >version!) back when I was still stuck using it.
> >
> >
> >T
> 
> The thing with stability is, it's meaningless without context. The
> only thing that has meaning is stability in the face of a particular
> workload.
> 
> Mission critical servers tend to have very static requirements. A
> power-user's desktop has very dynamic requirements. Debian stable
> will be more "stable" for the server, but the same is not
> necessarily true for the desktop.

OK, but what I was getting at was that Debian 'unstable' is actually
usable for daily desktop needs in spite of the name.


T

-- 
"Holy war is an oxymoron." -- Lazarus Long