Linux

47952 readers

1748 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

nooter692@lemmy.ml

MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz

So now what distro are we running for LTS desktops? (lemmy.zip)

submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip to c/linux@lemmy.ml

83 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Ubuntu has too many problems for me to want to run it. However, it has occurred to me that there aren't a lot of distros that are like the Ubuntu LTS.

Basic requirements for a LTS:

at least 2 years of support
semi recent versions of applications like Chrome and Firefox (might consider flatpak)
a stable experience that isn't buggy
fast security updates

Distros considered:

Debian (stable)
Rocky Linux
openSUSE
Cent OS stream
Fedora

As far as I can tell none of the options listed are quite suitable. They are either to unstable or way to out of date. I like Rocky Linux but it doesn't seem to be desktop focused as far as I can tell. I would use Debian but Debian doesn't have the greatest security defaults. (No selinux profiles out of the box)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Tattorack@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Cutting edge versions aren't stable either. You're essentially a beta tester for new features that may end up in an LTS release.

I'd rather have an LTS release where things have generally been tested well enough to warrant an LTS release.

[–] azvasKvklenko@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 months ago

I’d say it depends and it’s mostly just a theory that applies in some cases (like with kernel, critical infrastructure, server software) but usually desktop stack in LTS is just stinky old, which doesn’t make it any more stable, in some cases less stable.

Usually desktop environments are locked to some old versions and in theory fixes should get applied by the distro maintainers. In practice, actual developers behind desktops long moved on and don’t support it, bugs can only be fixed by huge code rework and it can’t be easily applied on top of old version (or can introduce new bugs and require testing). You end up with bugs that were fixed in upstream like 2 years ago and you will only get it improved upon new LTS upgrade cycle.

For example, LTS absolutely sucks for Plasma, because for last few years, each version is less and less buggy. On Debian/Ubuntu you won’t even get current version as they release the new OS, let alone recent inprovement