Re: Summary: Which Linux distribution is stable yet up-to-date

I never said Fedora is unstable! Arch can be unstable because it try to be on the bleeding edge, Fedora is "bleeding edge" as far as a stable release can be. and it has a short release/support cycle. -- Rabin On 1 December 2015 at 20:10, Omer Zak wrote: > Yesterday I posted my

Summary: Which Linux distribution is stable yet up-to-date

Yesterday I posted my question about selecting a Linux distribution to serve as the host Linux distribution for a system which runs Docker and a virtualization system. For such a system, I'll want to use a stable but up-to-date kernel. Unstable distributions will be operated inside a virtual

Debian Testing (was: Re: Summary: Which Linux distribution is stable yet up-to-date)

Actually, Debian Testing is a bad alternative when wishing to trade off stability vs. being up-to-date. On one hand, while Debian Testing is mostly stable, things break all the time (and get fixed within few days). Not good when you depend upon a working system for your work. The worst breakages

Re: Summary: Which Linux distribution is stable yet up-to-date

I tried to avoid this discussion but I'm a little surprised that nobody mentioned Debian Testing. I've used it as a desktop for a decade or so and it had a great combination of very good stability (i.e. I can't recall it ever disappointed me) and still relatively up to date. But then again - it's

Re: Which Linux distribution is stable yet up-to-date?

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:47:32AM -0500, Steve Litt wrote: > On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 10:53:09 +0200 > Omer Zak wrote: > > > > For the new system, I'd like to select an host Linux distribution with > > stable but up-to-date kernel, One feature that is unique (AFAIR) to Debian