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?

  • BaumGeist@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 minutes ago

    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

  • spicystraw@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 hour ago

    To ne honest PopOS is great. Frequent updates, good (subjective) design and ui choices, just works. If it fits your vibe I would say it is a good balance!

    • Revv@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      21 minutes ago

      It also has the benefit of being able to apply the vast majority of Ubuntu tutorials, etc. since it’s based on it. Plus it doesn’t force you to use snaps for everything.

  • Risc@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    39 minutes ago

    Debian with Flatpak and a Distrobox container running Arch is pretty good if you want a stable desktop with rolling packages.

  • sudoer777@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    Fedora is a good middle ground, it’s what Asahi Linux uses as its official distro

  • BCsven@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    6 hours ago

    OpenSUSE Tumbleweed. Rolling release, but has QA on the weekly builds. It fits between Debian and Arch for sure.

  • Eugenia@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    5 hours ago

    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.

  • Cenotaph@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    7 hours ago

    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

  • Elieas@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Debian Stable isn’t the only way to run Debian though people often act like it. That said, if you want the stability of Debian Stable then run it with the nix package manager (nix-bin).

  • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    3 hours ago

    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.

    • EuroNutellaMan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 hour ago

      or you could use a distro made by competent people and that actually serves the purpose Manjaro claims to have.

      You really shouldn’t go for Arch & derivatives if you don’t want to fiddle with your system (the whole point of Arch & co) and really want stability (not that arch is that unstable tbh as long as you manage it proprely). Manjaro included. In fact especially manjaro since it manages to be less stable than Arch specifically because of their update policy. I mean why even be on Arch if you can’t use the AUR and have the latest packages?

      Aside from this and maybe a few others there isn’t really a wrong distro to choose, better alternatives would be NixOS (stable), Fedora, Debian testing and probably several other distros that you probably should avoid for being one-man projects or stuff.

  • Nibodhika@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 hours ago

    What’s wrong with Ubuntu/Mint/PopOS/Fedora or any of the distros usually recommended? They’re easier to maintain and more up to date than Debian

    • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      I wouldn’t call them up to date but they are a little newer than Debian with the exception of Pop OS.

        • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          6 hours ago

          What is confusing? It is newer than Debian but still fairly out of date compared to Fedora or the latest Ubuntu release

    • BRINGit34@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 hours ago

      You should probably use fedora instead of debian testing.

      Fedora is intended to be used as a more up to date distro. While debian testing is just that. Testing

    • data1701d (He/Him)@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Having used the same Testing install since early 2022, I’d say it’s not too bad. Stability-wise, I only have a major problem once a year.

      Eventually, you get tired of having to switch to Flatpaks while packages transition. I’ll either stay on Trixie when it goes to stable or reinstall. It’s still an ext4 system and I want something different, as stable as ext4 is. I’ve been using btrfs on my new laptop for about a month and have been happy.

      Honestly, in the age of Flatpaks, stable Debian is fine for most people in my opinion.

        • data1701d (He/Him)@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          True; as said, this is Debian Testing. By “major issue”, I mean Grub occasionally gets borked and I have to chroot in and fix it, or the time_t_64 transition.

          I found the compromise between stability and newer packages acceptable for my desktop machine, which I am usually only on when I would actually have the time to debug these things. However, these days, I’m busy, thus may switch to stable in the next few months.

  • houndeyes@toast.ooo
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    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.