A novice question about rolling release and fixed release, and the technology I might miss out

Discussion
1

The core of the matter is clear. Rolling release means constant updates which means augmented possibility of broken OS while fixed release means big updates only (you have to install the OS again) every 0.5/1 years which means more stability.

BUT, as a “normal” user, what kind of tech do I actually miss out using a fixed release distro?
Servers, that prioritize stability over anything else, do use fixed releases, but don’t they risk to miss out on important tech? What’s the power user stance on this matter? How often do server admins usually update the OS?

Why do fixed release distros require an installation instead of being “simply” updated?
I am fascinated by the idea of not needing to ever install my OS again but I don’t want to have to face major problems if I happen to not be around my PC for a couple of months. Does exist a distro that prioritizes stability while being rolling release?

Thanks for your time and excuse me if the english was bad (second language).
Greetings.

1 Like
2

BUT, as a “normal” user, what kind of tech do I actually miss out using a fixed release distro?
Servers, that prioritize stability over anything else, do use fixed releases, but don’t they risk to miss out on important tech? What’s the power user stance on this matter?

Regarding the matter of technology being missed, one of the things I would things that you “miss out” on is the updated/newer functionality provided by the tools you use. Such as is the case with python. Python’s functionality is continuously growing, changing. Fixed release distros tend to only offer older versions of python in their default repositories.

In my experience, power users tend to like to take advantage of the added functionality provided in the latest versions of tools available to them. As a systems administrator working with fixed release distros, in order to meet the requirements of the users, it became necessary to compile, maintain, and distribute the new(est/er) versions of the same tools as those provided by the repositories, in a manner that allowed all versions to coexist. Anything you add to a system, that is not part of the default distribution, is now your responsibility. Any updates, changes, failures that happen are up to you to resolve; you are the sole person responsible for that addition.

How often do server admins usually update the OS?

In my experience, the OS on servers was only re/installed whenever the currently/old version of the OS was going out of support-life-cycle (out of band). This was/is usually done to provide the LEAST amount of server downtime possible. The usual “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” mentality.

Why do fixed release distros require an installation instead of being updates?

I have seen fixed release distros provide scripts that can be used to upgrade from one version below the current to the next version but it has always been highly discouraged in lieu or a full format and install. I believe the biggest reason why a fresh install is recommended may be due to the volume of things that could go wrong. Imagine the hundreds of thousands to millions of changes that may exist between the different versions of the OS. And on top of that, the incalculable potential issues arising from the custom changes that organizations can and/or do to the systems that have been running for years on end.

Hope this info from my point of view helps. :slight_smile:

1 Like
3

I don’t think it’s that clear.

From what I heard from lots of Arch Linux users, who originally were using some Ubuntu derivative, pretty much all of them agree, that Arch Linux is more stable. The graduality of updates makes it so much more benign to update, whereas these huge updates break tons of stuff, even on popular distributions like Ubuntu.
Especially the original Arch Linux is pretty stable, because if there is a rare bug at some point, you will get notified of it easily, if you wish, so you wait a week and then update. No update problems, compared to Ubuntu, etc.

As a “normal” a.k.a. “average” user you probably don’t miss out on much, on the surface. However, there might be issues below the surface, that aren’t as visible.
However, when such a normal user is a heavy user of a certain program, then even then the problem may become bigger, if the newest version won’t be available just yet.

No. Stability is #1 priority on servers and generally professional & commercial applications. It’s nothing unusual to run really old technology on servers, until the security issues become so big, they have no choice but to upgrade.

I’m a strong power user & I have servers.
For my personal stuff, I need the freshest stuff possible.
For my servers, it matters too, because I use technologies like Kubernetes, etc. where lots of changes are introduced pretty frequently. However, even then using a fixed release is not a big blocker, because stability is still #1 priority on a server.

It depends. Some are happy with the update mechanisms, others can only upgrade by re-installation.

Depends on your definition of “update”. Are you talking about simple package upgrades or actual OS version upgrades?

https://archlinux.org/

It’s fine.

1 Like
4

First of all thanks to everybody for the answers.

Reading online (reddit moslty) this is not very clear. Some people say Arch is more stable, some others say they have abandoned it because they weren’t happy with the costant tweaking required to not make it break.
Of course this might be caused by the fact that people who aren’t experienced enough to use Arch, do use Arch. That’s why I came here, searching for power users opinions.

Given that I was leaning towards trying a rolling release distro and what you told me I think I will tip my toes and see for myself. Though I was thinking about Void instead of Arch, on reddit I found a consistent amount of people saying it is more stable than Arch. Do you have any insight on this?

Thanks again for your time.

1 Like
5

I don’t. However @nevj uses Void a lot. Though, I would take his experience with a ball of salt, because he’s an expert and doesn’t notice most issues or circumvents them almost automatically.

1 Like
6

@allo_gallo ,
Akito is right about me. Dont know about ‘expert’… I would call it having lots of practice.
I will venture an opinion on Void. I cant compare with Arch, as I have never used Arch
My Void has never crashed in about 3 years. I do regular updates, as required for a rolling release distro
I actually have 3 Voids at the moment…my main one with Xfce, one with KDE which was quite an effort to setup, and one with the Lumina desktop which is an experiment.
I have only had one issue. It was with the xbps package system. The bluez package and a number of other related packages would not update. I got a swift answer by posting a bug report. All I needed to do was delete the package and reinstall it.
The Void Handbook/Manual is well written and covers most areas of installing and running Void. It is not as comprehensive as the Arch documentation.
You would have to learn the runit init system. That is the only choice of init system in Void. It is very simple… the learning curve is about half an hour… The Handbook covers it. You will need to understand runit, because when Void installs packages , it installs any daemons involved, but the package system does not start the daemon. You have to start it by hand or set it up,to start automatically on boot. Not complicated… it is only a one line command to start a daemon.

I dont know what happens in Arch, but in most distros when you install a package, it just works. Not so in Void, you have to start daemons by hand. So when you first boot a new Void installation, there will,be very few daemons running… You may need to start a daemon to get network cards running, for example. The install will setup the primary internet connection for you, but any others will require configuring and daemons.

The install itself is like BSD. It is different but easy enough to understand. Be carefil if you have more than one disk. It is possible to choose the rignt partition name for the root filesystem, and have it written on the wrong disk… because when the install starts what is sda and what is sdb seems to be random.

Void will quite happily share a disk with other distros in a multiboot scene. When you install is does not want to collar the whole disk. One of my Voids is the controlling distro for grub on one disk. I did that to see what it is like having the grub configuration in a rolling release distro. It has been OK so far, but I have only had it for 6 months.

Some people say that with a rolling release distro one should do a system backup before every upgrade. I dont do it that regularly. Void seems to be rather well managed in that respect.

If you have the disk space, when trying any new distro, it would be better to leave your current distro in place and do the new install in a new partition, and do a multiboot. Then , at least, if there is trouble, you have another linux to boot back to.

If you decide to do it and get stuck, there is help.

Regards
Neville

1 Like
7

Most major fixed release distros, eg Debian and Ubuntu, allow what are variously called cross release upgrades or inline upgrades.
I have done these in Debian and Devuan. The Devuan experience was superior.

  • One would definitely need to do a full system backup first
  • One could clone the current install to another partition, then try the inline upgrade there, leaving the original untouched.
  • It can muck up software that is installed outside the package system
  • It does preserve configurations of things like network and printers, so you dont have to redo them like in a fresh install.
  • It takes at least as much time as a fresh install, ignoring configuration time
1 Like
8

allo_gallo: Pay attention to this advice from Neville. It has the aroma of fried disk about it!

In addition to the multiple boot suggestion, I’d offer this: never store important data on your working system. Back it up to another system every day. My son gave me a NAS, but MEGA, Dropbox, and any external drive/USB will do. My criterion is simple: if it’s worth saving, it’s worth backing up. I have anywhere from two to five distros in my computer, but none of them have anything that can’t be replaced by reinstalling the distro. Password managers, games (e.g. Steam), and ruthless cleaning of your inbox will serve you well.
But I’m not a power user, just a retired experimenter. Don’t know what I would do with a server and really glad no network depends on me for support.
External storage is like gambling with house money and putting the profits in your pocket.

3 Likes
9

Hi Bill,
That is ambiguous. It might be read as… wipe the working system clean every day by moving all your data elsewhere.
I hope that is not what you meant. ?
Neville

1 Like
10

Neville, I’ve developed a habit of cleaning my email inbox to the bottom every day, either deleting them or moving emails and attachments for later work to storage folders. Similarly, I copy the contents of my Home folder to my external HDD after scrubbing it. It’s the electronic version of cleaning up your desk of papers at the end of the day–remember desks and paper?

Actually, wiping the working system clean is a good way to put it. I don’t want to wake up and discover a massive power surge has fried my computer. Oh, and periodically my external HDD is backed up to the NAS my son gave me.

Guilty as charged!

1 Like
11

Oh, so you really meant it!
Scientists never have tidy desks… I guess it carries over into my computer.
I remember one senior scientist I worked with… he had 2 desks… both untidy. When I asked he said “right one for science, left for administration”
Primitive version of folders.
Cheers
Neville

1 Like
12

Must carry over to regular people, my wife is always telling me about my untidy desk!!! looks perfectly normal to me!!!

1 Like
13

I was once told
" Bright people have untidy desks"
I took it as a compliment
Dont take it the wrong way Bill, I have also heard
“Creative people have tidy desks”

1 Like
14

I would adjust that to “Creative people are only able to see tidy desks”. :laughing:

2 Likes
15

OMG thanks to everybody for all these useful informations!

@nevj since I’ve seen your kindess and availability I’m going to ask you some other questions about Void, of course answer only when and if you have the time to do so, :slight_smile: thanks in advance.

Why was quite and effort setting Void up with KDE?

I plan to use it with i3, and to keep the system the most barebone I can, for example I plan to use the basic CLI tools for network and the stuff that usually come with a DE. Do you oversee any problem in my idea?

I plan to install it on a whole SSD I have to try it on, so no problems with multiple disks (for now). Can you recommend a step by step guide to install Void or the installation guide on the Void handbook is enough even for a novice?

Thank you everybody, greetings!

1 Like
16

The full install .iso file for Void only comes with Xfce.
To get KDE you have to start with the minimal Void .iso and add KDE, and a lot of other things, as packages.
You need a bit of experience before you try that, so I would recommend trying the full Void install with Xfce first, and at least getting to know the package system before trying a minimal install.
The minimal install boots with just a login prompt … no display manager, no dte. You have to be able to use the command line. There is nothing else, not even a terminal window. I do not know how much command line experience you have.

plan to use it with i3, and to keep the system the most barebone I can, for example I plan to use the basic CLI tools for network and the stuff that usually come with a DE. Do you oversee any problem in my idea?

Ok. That gives me some idea of your CLI experience. Yes I think you could handle a Void minimal install

I have used I3 in Void. It is OK. You can have both Xfce and I3 , the display manager will let you choose which to run.
If you want a barebones system, I dont see why you would bother with KDE. Just use the easy full Void install with Xfce. That will give you terminal windows, and you can do your network stuff by hand.
That is the way I do things. I dont like GUI tools for network configuration.

I plan to install it on a whole SSD I have to try it on, so no problems with multiple disks (for now). Can you recommend a step by step guide to install Void or the installation guide on the Void handbook is enough even for a novice?

Void handbook is fine. I started with that. It has an install section
It helps if you can use another computer to view the handbook, while you are doing the install. A tablet will do.
Using the whole disk for an install is easy, you will just have to tell it what partitions you need. Minimum is root filesystem and swap…
Void installer will look for an internet link… it is easier if that link is an NIC and ethernet… Wifi is more difficult. Void installer will setup that internet link with DHCP for you. Any other links you have to do by hand after the install is finished.

Regards
Neville

You are doing lots of thinking before you start. That is a good idea.

1 Like
17

Well now you know how to respond.
“Bright people have untidy desks”

2 Likes