Linux

56489 readers

1131 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 6 years ago

MODERATORS

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

nooter692@lemmy.ml

MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz

321

Realizing Arch isn't for me after updating broke VLC (lemmy.sdf.org)

submitted 4 days ago by makeitwonderful@lemmy.sdf.org to c/linux@lemmy.ml

287 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I realized my VLC was broke some point in the week after updating Arch. I spend time troubleshooting then find a forum post with replies from an Arch moderator saying they knew it would happen and it's my fault for not wanting to read through pages of changelogs. Another mod post says they won't announce that on the RSS feed either. I thought I was doing good by following the RSS but I guess that's not enough.

I've been happily using Arch for 5 years but after reading those posts I've decided to look for a different distro. Does anyone have recommendations for the closest I can get to Arch but with a different attitude around updating?

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

[–] MyNameIsRichard@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I used to think that, then I learnt the truth. Now-a-days, I say that you may as well use a rolling release because it's not really any more work that a fixed release and you have up to date software.

[–] KarnaSubarna@lemmy.ml 7 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Just to reiterate the same point - in fixed release, a package version is not released until all known issues are resolved.

At no point, it is end user responsibility to bother checking anything before installing a new version.

[–] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

in fixed release, a package version is not released until all known issues are resolved.

That's not really true. It's more important that the issues are known. Sometimes they actually wait longer to fix issues since it would introduce changes

[–] KarnaSubarna@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago

My bad, I meant "known major issues". If minor issues are not fixed, they document it on release note. But, at no point any fixed release distro ever released breaking changes "knowingly".

[–] MyNameIsRichard@lemmy.ml -4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Oh yes, the most mythical of software. Bug free.

[–] KarnaSubarna@lemmy.ml 8 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Bugs are of two types - known (found during testing by Distro maintainer) and unknown.

Fixed release fixes known bugs before pushing packages.

It is following the standard development life cycle.

[–] MyNameIsRichard@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Fixed release fixes known bugs before pushing packages.

So do rolling releases. What's your point?

[–] KarnaSubarna@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Are you familiar with the term "Regression testing"?