Linux middle ground?
Linux middle ground?
so a common claim I see made is that arch is up to date than Debian but harder to maintain and easier to break. Is there a good sort of middle ground distro between the reliability of Debian and the up-to-date packages of arch?
fedora is a good middle ground
Is there a good sort of middle ground distro between the reliability of Debian and the up-to-date packages of arch?
This guy:
(OpenSUSE Tumbleweed).
Or maybe Slowroll.Absolutely. Here's three options
Fedora updates every, or around every, 3 months. This is very stable but very up to date.Most professional devs particularly ones working in Linux projects use it fornit's relative stability while having modern packages.
There's also PopOS! which is a rolling release, updating daily, but much more delayed than arch thus being much more usable.
Now for my favourite, OpenSuse Tumbleweed. Same style as PopOs but with a KDE, or gnome spin or of the box. A bit more sleek too. It also has YAST which is the best GUI based managment system on Linux.
I use arch (btw) but have a second duel booted tumbleweed install for work related stuff in order tonensure stability
I've found openSUSE tumbleweed to be the perfect mix between stable and constant updates. By default uses brtfs so if you break something the fix is a simple as rolling back to the snapshot that was automatically made right before the update
OpenSUSE Tumbleweed.
Fedora is generally pretty good
You could.. of course also try to use Debian Testing (which is more stable than Debian Unstable), but also more up to date than just Debian Stable.
https://wiki.debian.org/DebianTesting And see also: https://www.debian.org/releases/testing/ (currently "trixie" is the testing release).
EDIT: I mention this, because nobody mentioned it yet.
OpenSUSE Tumbleweed. Rolling release, but has QA on the weekly builds. It fits between Debian and Arch for sure.
For private use? Hot take, but Arch. It's easy to maintain and not easy to break at all. I think I spend zero time on maintenance other than running package updates. I only reinstall when I get a new computer.
(I say for private use only because you'll be getting weird looks from people if you use arch on a server in a professional setting, and it might break if you try to update it after five years of not doing it since there aren't any "releases" to group big changes - in practice I run arch on my home server too with no issues)
This may be an unpopular opinion, but NixOS. It has package up-to-dateness comparable to (and sometimes better than) Arch, but between being declarative (and reproducible) and allowing rollbacks, it's much harder to break. The cost is, of course, having to learn how to use NixOS, as it's a fair bit different to using a "normal" Linux distro.
Tumbleweed
fedora maybe?
I would say:
- Fedora if you like a point release, which means that every 6 months you do a big update of core stuff like the desktop environment, and on Fedora everything else is always generally up to date.
- OpenSUSE Thumbleweed if you like a rolling release, which means that you don't do big updates, everything is kept to the last version that the software repository has, this is how arch works except in Thumbleweed the repositories are updated slower than in arch and less likely to break.
But you could also go for any more up to date debian-based distro, like Pop_OS or even Ubuntu, they might be easier for a newbie user. Fedora and OpenSUSE will be more up to date though.
If you do use Ubuntu, don't stick to just LTS versions, use the last version available (which right now happens to be an LTS version). The "extra support" it offers is not something desktop users care about, it's outweighted by the benefits of more updated software.
Debian-Testing (Trixie) is the way to go. It's a rolling release, but it's very stable, because packages end up there after being tested in Sid (their unstable rolling release). Whatever makes it out of Trixie, ends up on the normal Debian. I've been running it since April without any breakages.
Debian Testing has a lot more current packages, and is generally fairly stable. Debian Unstable is rolling release, and mostly a misnomer (but it is subject to massive changes at a moment's notice).
Fedora is like Debian Testing: a good middleground between current and stable.
I hear lots of good things about Nix, but I still haven't tried it. It seems to be the perfect blend of non-breaking and most up-to-date.
I'll just add to: don't believe everything you hear. Distrowars result in rhetoric that's way blown out of proportion. Arch isn't breaking down more often than a cybertruck, and Debian isn't so old that it yearns for the performance of Windows Vista.
Arch breaks, so does anything that tries to push updates at the drop of a hat; it's unlikely to brick your pc, and you'll just need to reconfigure some settings.
Debian is stable as its primary goal, this means the numbers don't look as big on paper; for that you should be playing cookie clicker, instead of micromanaging the worlds' most powerful web browser.
Try things out for yourself and see what fits, anyone who says otherwise is just trying to program you into joining their culture war
Debian and learn to use the nix package manager for your bleeding edge stuff
I guess I'm kind of confused as to the debate between Bleeding Edge vs Stable. I get the concept on paper, but what packages are so imperative that you need a Distro that is "Bleeding Edge". I run Pop_OS and it works great on my hardware(System76 so it kind of has the home field advantage). I have an old laptop running LMDE that doesn't ever need rebooted and it has every package I need for it to accomplish its job.
Others have given better advice than I will, but maybe determine why you need something that's bleeding edge. If the only answer is "Cuz Shiny new stuff!" I don't think it's needed that bad and tailor your setup for stability and functionality. I prefer Just Works Distros though. VM's are also a thing if you want to do some Distro Hopping
My server has been on Endeavour OS (arch with a gui installer) for at least 18 months. I run updates roughly every 10 days (basically whenever I remember). Never had a problem with it. I dare say it could go horribly wrong at some point so I keep the LTS kernel installed as well just as a fall back.
My main pc is also running Endeavour OS (dual boot with windows 11). Other than having to keep Bluetooth downgraded to support the ps5 dual sense controller, it runs great.
My only gripe is that updates often contain something that forces the kernel rebuild process and so it needs a reboot afterwards.
Every other Linux I've run has had some sort of "rebuild to fix" type issue at some point, or had been hard to find good support information for. Endeavour OS has been the most reliable and the easiest to fix and find support for.
IMO Debian is already pretty far middle-ground. The packages are new enough for my personal usage.
Atomic distros + distrobox/toolbx. Bluefin is a good start for general desktop or Bazzite for gaming (But Bluefin can be more stable, I use it for some games with steam in flatpak). If something breaks roll back to any release in the last 90 days with a single command. Install all of your packages in a distrobox (Arch if you need it). Otherwise in general Fedora is pretty good.
Manjaro has been specifically designed to have fresh packages (sourced from Arch) but to be user friendly, long term stable, and provide as many features as possible out of the box.
It requires some compromises in order to achieve this, in particular it wants you to stick to its curated package repo and a LTS kernel and use it's helper apps (package/kernel/driver manager) and update periodically. It won't remain stable if you tinker with it.
You'll get packages slower than Arch (depending on complexity, Plasma 6 took about two months, typically it's about two weeks) but faster than Debian stable.
I'm running it as my main driver for gaming and work for about 5 years now and it's been exactly what I wanted, a balanced mix of rolling and stable distro.
I've also given it to family members who are not computer savvy and it's been basically zero maintenance on my part.
If it has one downside is that you really have to leave it alone to do its thing. In that regard it takes a special category of user to enjoy it — you have to either be an experienced user who knows to leave it alone or a very basic user who doesn't know how to mess with it. The kind of enthusiastic Linux user who wants to tinker will make it fall apart and hate it, and they'd be happier on Arch or some of the other distros mentioned here.
Fedora, Ubuntu etc. use up to date packages if you're using flatpaks and snaps. Nix I suppose fits the bill better but it's a harder distro to "learn" than arch imo
How about Rhino? Rolling release of Debian Sid iirc
fedora atomic desktops (silverblue, kinoite, and derivatives like bluefin etc) are really great. They are as up-to-date as fedora, with an additional layer of stability provided by its atomic and image based nature.
I'd say Fedora is the middle-ground. You get up-to-date software in a stable distribution with daily security updates, and fixed OS upgrades each year.
I'm sure I'll get shouted down for this suggestion by the haters, but I'm going to make it anyway because it's actually really good:
Use an Ubuntu LTS flavour like Kubuntu. Then, add flatpak and for apps you want to keep up to date, install either the flatpak or the snap, depending on the particular app. In my personal experience, sometimes the flatpak is better and sometimes the snap is better. (I would add Nix to the mix, but I wouldn't call it particularly easy for beginners.)
This gets you:
- A reliable Debian-like base that you only have to upgrade to new releases every 2 years
- Up-to-date apps, including confinement for those apps
- New kernels every 6 months (if you choose - you don't have to, though)
Debian with Flatpak and a Distrobox container running Arch is pretty good if you want a stable desktop with rolling packages.
I've been using Arch for a year and nothing has broken. Did have to "fix" a lot of stuff after install because it was my first time using Arch and didn't realize all the other stuff I had to install... Mainly to get my Nvidia GPU to work. But a few hours later and it's been rock solid since.
My recommendation would be Debian + Flatpak & Appimages (or + Snaps if you're the devil). Super stable, but also access to the latest.
Fedora is also a middle ground too, but they're pushing flatpaks heavily so it might not matter anyway since Fedora + flatpak and Debian + flatpak are about the same.
Fedora is pretty good there, but I wouldnt use the DNF variants.
The atomic variants though totally rock. Atomic Desktops, IoT, etc.
The atomic model deals with all the troubles you would have with so new packages.
OpenSUSE slowroll would be a better middle-ground, but I have had strange broken packages and they dont have a useful atomic model, as it is not image-based.
Debian Testing.
Garuda. It's an Arch derivative that creates a snapshot of your system every time you update. That way, if the update breaks something, you can just roll your system back to the last working snapshot.
Slackware current.
I like the idea of a stable distro as the host OS and Distrobox with Arch and the AUR for applications.
For most of my machines, I do not need the latest kernel or even the latest desktop environment. But it is a pain to have out of date desktop apps and especially dev tools.
I think this strikes a nice balance.
Void linux