Stable rolling release distro

but that sounds too sane

loonix is either bleeding edge updated-5-times-a-day software that deletes your /usr folder, or 5 years old end-of-life 'stable' software

>>55951577
debian testing.

>>55951577
literally arch

>>55951577
>updates end-user software as they are released
the only distros that 'kind of' begin to do this are distros where you compile your own like gentoo and maybe arch
>keep stable kernels
pretty much every major linux distro does this
>system packages
vague but, if you mean libc then, again, every major linux distro does this.

>>55951577
It's called Arch Linux + common sense. Just read up on system packages before you install them, and if there's no issues then install it

>>55951878
This.
Or Ubuntu.

gentoo. seriously.

ChakraOS

>>55951577
what is the purpose of the image you posted? did you literally just choose a random image from a random folder and if so, why is this particular image even saved on your machine?

File: chakra-screenshot.jpg (693KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

693KB, 1024x576px

>>55952159
>ChakraOS
It may be good, but the screenshot on their frontpage made me puke.

Pclos
/Thread

>>55951577
Gentoo.
And I'm not even memeing with this one.

>>55951577
Stability depends on users' decesions. If you are reckless you can break the most "stable" distro in a minute.

I use both Ubuntu and Arch. Stability comes when you carefully put together a distro from the minimal. Both Ubuntu (mini) and Arch are stable if you know what you are doing

>>55951878
is it stable enough ?

what's the difference between Ubuntu 16.04 and Debian testing ?

Debian testing.

The only times I managed to turn both ubuntu and arch into an unstable mess was when I desperately tried to make something work and didn't consider much of what I was doing. I never really had trouble with updates, maybe I got lucky

>>55952214
>"put a pretty wallpaper on it and we're good"
linux design philosophy

Debian testing? I use Sid now and it's pretty nice.

>>55953021
Ubuntu is basically Debian Sid with Unity and some extra stuff.

>>55951577
>Stable rolling release distro
are you retarded ? rolling release and stable are opposites by definition.

>>55953464
>Sid

"Please note that security updates for "unstable" distribution
 are not managed by the security team. Hence, "unstable" does
 not get security updates in a timely manner. For more information
 please see the Security Team's FAQ. "

sounds like fun.

>>55953464
can post the last line from gcc -v and uname -r ?

>>55953774
Yes, it's using gcc6. I haven't been following performance and issues on it yet.
On kernel, it brings 4.6.0-1-amd64, but uname- -a brings out

Linux A-chan 4.6.0-1-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 4.6.4-1 (2016-07-18) x86_64 GNU/Linux

. 4.7 is still in experimental.

>>55953557
Testing is even worse since it's basically delayed Sid. You would have to trust that the programs get patched by the maintainers. If you want security, but old packages, then get Jessie.

>>55953839
Testing gets timely security updates from the security team.
Stop talking shit about things you know nothing about.

>>55953884
>Q: How is security handled for testing?

>A: Security for testing benefits from the security efforts of the entire project for unstable. However, there is a minimum two-day migration delay, and sometimes security fixes can be held up by transitions. The Security Team helps to move along those transitions holding back important security uploads, but this is not always possible and delays may occur. Especially in the months after a new stable release, when many new versions are uploaded to unstable, security fixes for testing may lag behind. If you want to have a secure (and stable) server you are strongly encouraged to stay with stable.

>>55953938
That's about security updates from upstream maintainers. testing/security is managed by the debian security team and gets the same fixes that stable gets in the same timeframe

>>55953820
that's definitely one iteration ahead of Ubuntu 16.04

>>55954070
>The Debian testing security team handles issues for testing. They will make sure that the fixed packages enter testing in the usual way by migration from unstable (with reduced quarantine time), or, if that still takes too long, make them available via the normal http://security.debian.org infrastructure.

>Note that this doesn't guarantee that all known security bugs are fixed in testing! Some updated packages might be waiting for transition to testing. More information about the security infrastructure for testing can be found at http://secure-testing-master.debian.net/.
I haven't seen anything that says otherwise. As far as I know Debian security team != Debian Testing security team. I won't grasp at straws if I'm proven wrong, I'd love to clear things out if I'm not correct.

>>55953839
>Testing is even worse
No, it gets some attention from the security team which steps in when there's something really big. Unstable relies on package maintainer fags.

>>55954166
At least testing has somebody caring about security. Somebody to bother the package fags.

It's probably some of the same people as in stable.

>>55951577
Antergos.

File: 1458493891050.png (755KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

755KB, 1080x1920px

>>55951577
Arch; you can tell pacman to ignore kernel upgrades or any other upgrade you want it to ignore and upgrade them manually if you trust it.

File: debian lesbians.png (1MB, 2133x1200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2133x1200px

>>55954430
Debian testing.
I kid, I like all Linux, even the abomination that is Android.

>>55954166
>>55954215
You guys are talking about two different cases of priority.

When a low priority security issue is found and the package has a maintainer, the issue is reported to the upstream maintainer who fixes it and pushes it into unstable. It is then quickly (within a couple days) merged into testing, and then backported into the stable package by the security team if necessary.

When anything of higher priority is found (or when a package has no maintainer), the security team will fix the issue themselves and push directly to testing and stable as soon as they can (see heartbleed, shellshock). The fix from the security team is not pushed to unstable. The upstream maintainer is expected to fix the issue as part of the package's source and then push that to unstable himself, after which it will naturally get to testing and replace the security team's patched version (but it will not get to stable). The only exception to this is when the package does not have a maintainer. In this case, testing and unstable are probably the same package anyway, so a security team member temporarily adopts the package, pushes the fix to everywhere, and then disowns it again.

tl;dr unstable is better for low priority upstream fixes, testing is better for higher priority security team interventions, stable is good for everything security-wise.

>>55954603
>tl;dr unstable is better for low priority upstream fixes, testing is better for higher priority security team interventions
that makes sense

>>55952019
>>55952915

Seriously, if you have a fast enough processor and enough memory, you can't go wrong with Gentoo.

>>55955195
can't go right either

you're just gonna waste a ton of time

>>55951577
Gentoo

Manjaro

CRUX has a versioned base and rolling release packages, like the BSDs

>>55956170
oh and to all the arch noobies reccomending arch, you are fucking retarded; yeah you can ignore certain packages, but first you got to figure out what packages belong in "base", manually blacklist them and after that you don't even get security updates, kek. Oh and since arch is a binary system you get a fucked UP system when evan a single "base" package updates ABI.