shitstemd, glibc, bloated kernel, sudo and proprietary blobs are not secure
Danke für dies handbuch
ITT - “I DISAGREE WITH THE FACTUAL ACCURACY OF THE SETUP AND/OR PUNCHLINE OF YOUR JOKE.”
I’ll never stop hating that debian is labeled stable. I’m fully aware that they are using the definition of stable that simply means not updating constantly but the problem is that people conflate that with stability as in unbreaking. Except it’s the exact opposite in my experience, I’ve had apt absolutely obliterate debian systems way too often. Vs pacman on arxh seems to be exceptionally good at avoiding that. Sure the updated package itself could potentially have a bug or cause a problem but I can’t think of any instance where the actual process of updating itself is what eviscerated the system like with apt and dpkg.
And even in the event of an update going catastrophically wrong to the point that the system is inoperable I can simply chroot in use a statically built binary pacman and in a oneliner command reinstall ALL native packages in one go which I’ve never had not fix a borked system from interrupted update or needing a rollback
depends on workload. Debian has very old packages and can be insecure but it is a set it and forget it type of thing, it is good when uptime is critical for a server. For desktops, or servers that need better security, but can tolerate a little downtime, rolling releases are good too, if you are enough to update frequently, and you should, since updates usually contain a lot of patched vulrenabilities
FWIW I’ve got a Debian server that hosts most of my sites and primary DNS server, that’s been running since Etch (4.0, 2007ish). I’ve upgraded it over the years, switched from a dedicated server to OpenVZ to KVM, and it’s still running today on Bookworm. No major issues with upgrades.
You are maybe conflating stability with convenience.
“Why is this stable version of my OS unstable when I update and or install new packages…”
The entire OS falling down randomly on every distribution during normal OS background operations was always an issue or worry, and old Debbie Stables was meant to help make linux feel reliable for production server use, and it has done a decent job at it.
I mean when I can take an Arch Linux installation that I forgot about on my server and is now 8 years out of date and simply manually update the key ring and then be up to date without any issue but every time I’ve ever tried to do many multiple major version jumps on debian it’s died horrifically… I would personally call the latter less stable. Or at least less robust lol.
I genuinely think that because Arch Linux is a rolling distribution that it’s update process is just somehow more thorough and less likely to explode.
The last one with debian was a buster to bookworm jump. Midway through something went horrifically wrong and dpkg just bailed out. The only problem was that it somehow during all of that removed the entirety of every binary in /bin. Leaving the system completely inoperable and I attempted to Google for a similar solution as arch. Where i could chroot in and fix it with one simple line. But so far as I was able to find there is no such option with apt/dpkg. If I wanted to attempt to recover the system it would have been an entirely manual Endeavor with a lot of pain.
I would also personally label having the tools to recover from catastrophic failure as being an important part of stability especially when people advocate for things like Debian in a server critical environment and actively discourage the use of things like Arch
If the only thing granting at the title of stability is the lack of update frequency that can simply be recreated on Arch Linux by just not updating frequentlyಠ_ಠ
While I personally agree with your sentiment, and much prefer arch to debian for my own systems, there is one way where debian can be more stable. When projects release software with bugs I usually have to deal with those on Arch, even if someone else has already submitted the bug reports upstream and they are already being worked on. There are often periods of a couple of weeks where something is broken - usually nothing big enough to be more than a minor annoyance that I can work around. Admittedly, I could just stop doing updates when everything seems to be working, to stay in a more stable state, but debian is a bit more broadly and thoroughly tested. Although the downside is that when upstream bugs do slip through into debian, they tend to stay there longer than they do on arch. That said, most of those bugs wouldn’t get fixed as fast upstream if not for rolling distro users testing things and finding bugs before buggy releases get to non-rolling “stable” distros.
No opinion on Debian but as a heavy ArchLinux user I should point out you shouldn’t upgrade without reading the news as occasionally manual intervention is required. Upgrades can and will break things if you’re not careful.
https://archlinux.org/news/openblas-0323-2-update-requires-manual-intervention/
https://archlinux.org/news/ansible-core-2153-1-update-may-require-manual-intervention/
https://archlinux.org/news/incoming-changes-in-jdk-jre-21-packages-may-require-manual-intervention/
Good point! But I recently swapped to Debian 12 from Fedora 41. The latter needing constant updates several times a day. And despite this, it was not stable at all.
Fedora is good on laptops since it has the very newest kernel and thus includes all the latest driver fixes (which are needed for laptops like the Framework where they’re actively improving things). On the other hand, it has the very newest kernel and thus includes all the latest bugs.
… and the latest security patches
I think I’ve put fedora on at least 4 personal systems and it has never caused an issue. It’s so smooth it’s boring in the best way. Switched to it for daily computing about 4 years ago. I use a minipc as a media server with Arch and turning it on it’s exciting. Just this fucking morning the default configuration decided that my main audio device was a microphone. Lovely. So flexible.
From my experience of Fedora: would you like to update today? Debian: You’re good bro, no updates today.
5, years, later…
Debian: You’re good bro, no updates today.
Ha. You want STABLE, use NixOS.
If you’re cannot parse the configuration file, you don’t update. It is perfectly, 100% stable, about 60% of the time (when I change my config file without an error).
nixOS appeals to niche audiences who like to brag about it. I think it is not a good idea to base everything on config files, since there is a lot of room for user error
The config files literally won’t compile if there is an incompatibility or error in the code.
Also, every distro has an audience who love to brag about it. The worst part of being a Nix user is I can no longer say “Arch BTW”.
deleted by creator
Mint: easy
Mint: come for the ease of installation and use, stay because it’s just Ubuntu and Debian under the hood so it has tons of support, and the terminal is right there if you need to out so some real shit.
I think mine doesn’t roll off the tongue in quite the same way.
Nixos: everything everywhere all at once
I’m still a Linux noob all things considered, and I’ve been using NixOS for six months or more.
It is HARD, but I see the true value of it. I will never need to reinstall Linux because I broke it, that’s simply impossible.
If I ever need to migrate my system, it’s all backed up to github. With a single
Bash update.shevery single .config file backed up, system upgraded, all packages updated.
I just love Nix, it’s the perfect OS for me.
Now I just need to learn how to use flakes…
Sidebar: I’ve never asked before, but maybe someone can help me out. If I install a flake of an application, am I supposed to add it to the existing flake, or can I modulate flakes?
I’ve noticed when installing the nixvim flake it generates a new flake and it runs when I issue the
nix run ~/.dotfiles/nixvim/flake.nixcommand, but I don’t want to have to run that command every time. I feel like making a fish abbreviation isn’t the correct way of doing this.
Good for you there wasn’t an “ease of use” or “intuitive” field.
nixOS is for people who love config files
you don’t even need to know where, you don’t even need to know when. that’s how every it gets
NixOS is from Max Verstappen country not Sebastian Vettel country
I think, a more serious attempt to summarize openSUSE would probably be: Functionality
Debian, Arch, Fedora and such are all weirdly similar in that they focus so much on minimalism. For example, Debian uses
dashas the default shell, which breaks TTYs, but possibly squeezes out a tiny bit of performance, so I guess, that’s worth it…?i used Tumbleweed with KDE. It is something i can recommend. Not that customizable, but it has tons of features and very stable for a rolling distro. It only breaks if you try to customize stuff too much
still much more customizable than GNOME
Debian only uses dash for the system shell, and it does improve performance a bit given how many shell scripts run on a typical Linux system. Interactive shell is still set to Bash by default.
Sure, it’s still just certainly a choice. It took me multiple years to realize why it’s so broken on TTYs, as well as when you run
newgrpand probably other places.I thought Linux just sometimes goes into this buggy state, where you can’t make any typos. At one point, I broke my GUI session and had to fix it, typing commands off of my phone screen, without making any typos.
Learning that this is Working As Intended™ just killed me…
These days, I know that you can just run
bash(or your shell of choice) to get out of this buggy state, and I still setbashas the system shell when I have to use a Debian-based system, because I just do not care about however much performance it brings in.
More accurate i would describe Fedora is:
Adopting Modern features first(Wayland,pipewire,etc Like there is no x mode in most stable Wayland desktops) and only having free and open source Repos(Rpmfusion can be added but its not official and excludes the Kernel drivers).I would hope the Fedora isn’t the only one that cares about security
there are many distros with even better or similiar security as fedora. The least secure ones are Ubuntu and distros based on it, and Debian stable. Even less secure are any inactive distro. But in general, most distros can be hardened, some more, some less. Like i can harden my Android phone similiar to Arch’s level. (yes, i also use custom kernel on my phone, the most secure one for my device)
Debian? Insecure? It’s only as insecure as you make it. The default minimal installation from the netinstall CD has barely anything running - not even SSH unless you explicitly select it during installation.
Why do you think ubuntu and debian derivatives are unsecure?
they are the most widely used, hackers and malware developers target these distros first
It’s because there are cases where non security related bugs end up being security bugs after all.
When you run OpenSUSE, you can feel it was made by Germans.
The installer is a beautiful example of German engineering.
The package manager is a perfect example of German over-engineering.
If you run it with KDE, you have 2 redundant GUI admin tools for every config in the system, and 4 for setting up printers.German engineering.
I can hear this gif. I guess it’s time to have my colonoscopy.
Thank you for the nostalgia
Yeah that sounds like a typical BMW engine layout.
Hey the BMW engine that had 2 redundant everything was pretty awesome because half the engine could die and it’d keep going as an inline 6. It was 2 of everything. ECU, Distributor, even fuel pumps and rails
It’s amazing how OpenSUSE got my laptop’s valve covers to leak oil.
As the owner of many old German cars this is funny but only because it means no one read the technical manual that came with the car
As the former owner of an E36 and then an E90 I can tell you that the more modern ones still piss oil just as badly. And the consequences can be much worse (read: expensive) to boot.
