I'm looking for linux distro which is stable like debian

>>56227895

Define stable

stable ~= old

maybe ubuntu? opensuse?

>>56227895
Debian Testing/Stretch

>>56227971
I'm using debian for a year and never get crash, freeze, etc.
>>56227997
I was working on many *buntu distros, but i always get lot of bugs just few days after installation

>>56228012
+1

>>56228012
This, it is so comfy, also OP, Debian's definition of testing is alot different than arch's definition.

To be put into testing, a package has to:
- The package has been in "unstable" at least for 2-10 days (depending on the urgency of the upload).
- The package has been built for all the architectures which the present version in testing was built for.
I- nstalling the package into testing will not make the distribution more uninstallable.
- The package does not introduce new release critical bugs.

>>56228038
I run Debian Testing since a Year now and its Rock-Stable. And when some major Updates happen that might break things, apt gives you the Changelog of these Packages before asking you to upgrade.

how about arch? not suggesting, just asking.

>>56228145
>Testing
Enjoy your security updates!

>>56227895
Arch Linux.

>>56228457
Not op. Is it as lightweight as mint? I used mint and im not a pro with linux, what should i read/know to start using it?

>>56228864
No graphical installer makes it a lot less noob friendly than mint.

>>56230146
im struggling installing it

>>56228253
>>56228457
I would also recommend Arch. Sure it might be a little bit annoying to install, but it's really not that hard and takes about 1-2 hours max if you struggle with the partitioning (use gparted live if you are too lazy to figure it out).

I honestly hate every other distro, especially Ubuntu which is buggy as hell and has unbelievably outdated crap. If you want something that just werks you should seriously consider Arch.

>>56227895
>stable
You're not exactly running a server (I assume), so you don't need something fool-proofly stable. Debian testing has the same packages as Ubuntu, which is perfectly fine (I haven't encountered a problem, at least).

>>56227895
your definition of stable does not fit debians definition. by your definition my debian unstable installation is stable.

>>56227895
i would suggest fedora, it has a nice installer and will probably be more stable than arch for you while having new packages

>>56230424
Use Architect.
It really should be the default. Although I understand why it isn't.
Arch devs do the bare minimum of work required to maintain a distro, but they do that VERY well.

>>56227895
Debian testing or Arch / Antergos

>>56230424
>>56232433
i actually think arch-anywhere is superior to architect these days

>>56227895
Ubuntu [spoiler]MATE[/spoiler]

>>56228038
I've been using arch and gentoo for about a year and six months respectively, and have only had crashes from my fuck ups like running

:(){ : | : & }

, running an application that captures my keyboard and doesn't exit, or trying to install nvidia drivers from outside the repos
when I manage to lock up X by running a wine application that doesn't close correctly, I just switch TTYs and pkill -9 it
point is that the system is as stable as the administrator is experienced, just subscribe to mailing lists if you're really worried

>>56232595
>point is that the system is as stable as the administrator is experienced

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=155873

>>56228262
This

>>56227895
You care for all the packages in your system the same?
Are you afraid of compiling?

Just use Debian Stable and compile the packages you care about like grown ups do!

You will have the best of both worlds. The legendary reliability and easy administration of Debian Stable along with the latest versions of the programs you want.

>>56232831
If Debian had a package manager that can automatically update packages you installed from source, like Arch does, I'd use it.

>>56227895
>Debian is stable
No, old packages != stable.
Even the repo structure is so bad that the dumb package manager can't remove meta packages. You are left with unnecessary packages. Wait for those orhphaned packages to conflict with something


I suggest you get korora

>>56232855
>a package manager that can automatically update packages you installed from source
>like Arch

I'm not talking about a package manager

I'm talking about the traditional way of checking out the source, make, make install, make your changes, compile again, etc

You know, like every programmer on every OS does

Why you need all your programs to be in the "bleeding edge"?

Just concentrate on the packages you care about to have the latest development version (because you are contributing, you are a professional, etc) and cut out the middle-man of package management

>>56232876
>Wait for those orhphaned packages to conflict with something
That's not how it works.
That's not how any of this works.

>>56227895
Home user's idea of stable is different from server environment stable. Home user doesn't want to fix things constantly but servers can't be down on their own even for a second. You need tons and tons of testing to make sure it's rock solid and you could almost even use it in situations where your life depended on it. That makes the packages ancient. You just want any distro and backups.

How about Linux Mint Debian Edition? I think it has newer shit than Debian and the installation is easy and no need to rice.

>>56232947
>How about Linux Mint Debian Edition?

A distro that literally failed in the past, so now they call it LMDE2, hoping it will work this time.
Linux Mint has 1 (1) developer, and he doesn't care about the LMDE branch.
It's a nice idea, and would be great if it was actually working, but it isn't. It's updated whenever the maintainers can spare time to care about it after being done with Mint.

>>56227895
Gentoo, not kidding for once. You get a super stable environment and you can unmask only the newer software you really need.

>>56232939
Sure thing

>>56233003
I never really got that LMDE -> LMDE2 thing, what was the reason behind it? Too many changes?

>>56233061
LMDE was neglected to the point where it didn't receive a single update in months.
When they rebooted it, it wasn't compatible to earlier versions, so they called it LMDE2.