Most “stable” distros offer kernel version that update more frequently to accommodate new hardware.
Most “rolling” distros offer LTS kernels that remain essentially unchanged for long periods.
The kernel is one of the smallest differences between the two models.
Agreed. That is why I think Linux Mint Debian Edition (LMDE) is a better desktop than Debian Stable. The DE and everyday GUI tools stay fresh even if most of the distro is a time capsule.
It is funny. You and I landed in different places but for almost the same reasons.
I use a rolling release because I want my system to work. “Tinkering with my tech stuff” is an activity I want to do when I want and not something I want thrust upon me.
On “stable” distros, I was always working around gaps in the repo or dealing with issues that others had already fixed. And everything I did myself was something I had to maintain and, since I did not really, my systems became less and less stable and more bloated over time.
With a rolling distro, I leave everything to the package manager. When I run my software, most of the issues I read other people complaining about have already been fixed.
And updates on “stable” distros are stressful because they are fragile. On my rolling distro, I can update every day and never have to tinker with anything beyond the update command itself. On the rare occasion that something additional needs to be done, it is localized to a few packages at most and easy to understand.
Anyway, there is no right or wrong as long as it works for you.
Where did the idea come from that rolling releases are about hardware?
Hardware support is almost entirely about the kernel.
Many distros, even non-rolling ones like Mint and Ubuntu, offer alternative kernels with support for newer hardware. These are often updated frequently. Even incredibly “stable” distros like Red Hat Enterprise Linux regularly release kernels with updated hardware support.
And you can compile the kernel yourself to whatever version you want or even use a kernel from a different distro.
Rolling releases are more about the other 80,000 packages that are not the kernel.
I would say
Is this based on experience? Or are you guessing?
I ask because my lived experience is that rolling releases break less in practice
Before I used rolling releases, I spent more time dealing with bugs in old versions than I do fixing breakages in my rolling disto.
And non-rolling “upgrades” were always fraught with peril whereas I update my rolling release without any concern at all.
I use ancient hardware (as old as 2008 iMacs) and I greatly prefer rolling releases.
Open Source software is always improving and I like to have the best available as it makes my life easier.
In my experience, things just work better. I have spent years now reading complaints online about how Wayland does not work, the bugs in certain software, and features that are missing. Almost always I wonder what versions they are running because I have none of those problems. Lots of Wayland complaints from people using systems that freeze software versions for years. They have no idea what they are missing. This is just an example of software that is rapidly evolving. There are many more.
Next is performance. Performance improvements can really be felt on old hardware. Improvements in scheduling, network, and memory handling really stand out. It is surprising how often improvements appear for even very old hardware. Old Intel GPUs get updates for example. Webcams get better support, etc.
Some kinds of software see dramatic improvements. I work with the AV1 video codec. New releases can bring 20% speed improvements that translate to saving many minutes or even hours on certain jobs. I want those on the next job I run.
I work on my computer every day and, on any given day, I may want or enjoy a feature that was just added. This has happened to me many times with software like GIMP where a job is dramatically easier (for example text improvements tag appeared in GIMP 3).
If you do software development, it is common to need or want some recently developed component. It is common for these to require support from fairly recent libraries. Doing dev on distros like Debian or RHEL was always a nightmare of the installed versions being too old.
And that brings me to stability.
On systems that update infrequently, I find myself working against the software repos. I may install third-party repos. I may build things myself. I may use Flatpak or AppImage. And all of that makes my system a house of cards that is LESS stable. Over time, stuff my distro does not maintain gets strewn everywhere. Eventually, it makes sense to just wipe it all and start fresh. From what I see online, a lot of people have this experience.
On of the biggest reasons I prefer rolling releases with large repos is because, in my experience, they result in much more stable systems in practice. And if everything comes from the repo, everything stays much more manageable and sustainable.
I use Debian Stable on servers and in containers all the time. But, to single it out, I find that actually using it as a desktop is a disaster for all of the above reasons but especially that it becomes an unstable mess of software cobbled together from dozens of sources. Rolling releases are easier to manage. This is the opposite of what some others say, I realize.
In fact, if I do have to use a “more stable” distro, I usually install an Arch Linux Distrobox and use that to get access to a larger repo of more frequently updated packages.
I use EndeavourOS on Mac hardware for very similar years.
Wifi (Broadcom-wl on the older stuff and brcmfmac_wcc on the newest) works well on all of them.
Webcams work well on all of them as well. Most are just USB cams but some use the FaceTimeHD module that builds with DKMS but works very well for me.
I cannot remember if I had to install the FaceTimeHD driver or if it was auto-installed by EOS. Even if not, it is in the repos and one line to install the package.
I highly recommend EndeavourOS for old MacBooks.
I have a 2008 iMac, 2015 iMac, 2012 MacBook Pro, 2016 MacBook Pro, 2013 MacBook Air, 2017 MacBook Air, and 2020 MacBook Air all running EOS (last one uses a special kernel because of the T2 chip).
They all run flawlessly including the Broadcom WiFi. The Arch kernel is the only one I have found where these drivers work well and EOS sets them up automatically during install.
CachyOS is also an option but the video is wonky on my older MacBooks. EOS is flawless.
Cool. Me too. And?
Except Debian packages do get very old. Which people often have to work around, leading to a less stable system. And Arch is quite stable.
Stable meaning “works without crashing or glitching” not “version numbers never change” (which is what stable means in Debian Stable).
KDE:
“The Unix philosophy favors composability as opposed to monolithic design”
Xorg is a monolith with essentially one implementation. Wayland is a modular system with almost every component available from multiple sources.
Saying adopting Wayland means you “hate UNIX” is one of the least thoughtful arguments I can imagine.
One of the great aspects of Open Source is that you can continue to use any software you like for as long as you want. Enjoy Xorg (or your other favourite X11 server).
Of course, a majority of Xorg devs disagreed with you which is why they started Wayland to begin with. And a majority of desktop Linux users disagree with you now as three quarters of them have switched to Wayland.
Wayland offers a lot that X11 does not at this point. So, nobody is coming back. But if you are happy with X, stick with it.
You are going to lose access to a lot of apps though. There are very few Wayland only apps now but there are going to be many more in the coming years. And when toolkits like GTK5 go Wayland only, you may lose a some you already use.
“For most users, this will have no immediate impact. The vast majority of our users are already using the Wayland session”
So happy to read this as there is always somebody still claiming that “Wayland does not work” and “nobody wants to switch to Wayland” just because they have not.
Also great to see that the plan is for Wayland on FreeBSD as well so the Open Source desktops can stay aligned. GNOME on FreeBSD is more problematic, not because of Wayland but because of Systemd.
A Linux distro can be “for beginners” because it includes reasonable defaults and tools that make it easier to use. But it will never really be “only” for beginners.
Every Linux distro uses basically the same kernel. They all offer a console to access the command line. So, as an expert, what can I not do in basically any version of Linux?
With things like Distrobox, I can even get any other version of Linux on my version of Linux.
I could be installing applications from the AUR 15 minutes after installing ZorinOS. I could be running containers, compiling code, deploying cloud infrastructure, doing offensive cybersecurity, playing games in Steam, transcoding video, or running AI agents the console. What exactly can I not do on Zorin that need an “expert” distro for?
People are a bit too elitist sometimes.
Not a Zorin user by the way.
For some, the phone they use is mandated by their employer.
I am very pro Linux but “I like Windows” is valid enough for me. I might ask why but I am not going to act like that reason is invalid.
Very happy to shake hands. Have an excellent week.
Kent does a good PR spin on things
Actually, this is where he lost me. I was a huge fan of bcachefs and wanted it in the kernel. So, I was very much on Kent’s side.
But everything he screwed up he would immediately start trashing everybody else and shitting blame everywhere but himself. It was dishonest and distasteful.
Worst of all, he would also hide behind the “fighting for the users” line and, as a user, all I could see was a guy that was putting way too much effort into ensuring that my needs would not be met (because it was clear he was going to get kicked out of the kernel).
Anyway, I found his “PR” left A LOT to be desired. I mean, if you do not have much information then I guess you could just take his words at face value and be convinced. But if you had basically any prior knowledge, what he was saying just did not pass the smell test.
I agree with pretty much everything else you are saying. And I really wish there was a way of having bcachefs in the kernel.
Turn them into a Kebernetes or a Proxmox cluster.