>Samba 4.3 came out in 2015 >Debian in 2017 has Samba 4.2

honestly, i know people will tell you otherwise, but arch works fine for me.
obviously would never work for a company, if that's even on your mind then you are dumb for thinking you have a real choice.
fedora might work if you need muh stability, or gentoo, but i'm not a huge fan of either.

>>58618032
Centos

>>58618051
>>58618032

Second arch

>>58618067
>Centos

>>58618032

Debian is for stability. Not bleeding edge.

>>58618077
>2 year old software that is 3 versions behind the current STABLE release
>"bleeding edge"
Pick one

>>58618032
>samba/testing 2:4.5.2+dfsg-2 amd64

use testing or unstable then you nigger if you arent happy with stable version which is stable and works

>>58618124
>mixing branches/using testing on a home server
This isn't Gentoo, you can't do that and expect your system to last long. You WILL run into an unrecoverable dependency hell sooner or later.

>>58618136
>You WILL run into an unrecoverable
no, I'm not retarded

Use openSUSE tumbleweed if you want up-to-date software.

>>58618123
Jessie came out on April 26th, 2015.

>>58618032
>debian released in april 2015
>samba 4.3 released in september 2015
you're fucking retarded

You don't know how Debian works. Just stick to Windows server or something.

>>58618051
>Arch for servers
Un-ironically kill yourself.

>>58618181
Enjoy apt throwing unmet dependency errors every time you try and do something. There's a good reason people say not to mix branches on Debian.

>>58618032
If you don't want a debian environment, just use ubuntu server

>>58618032

What does the true and tested 4.2 lack that 4.3 has?

I can read release logs, that's not the point. My point is why would you """need'''''' a newer samba?

>>58618213
>>58618196
Just more reason to not use Debian. Stretch doesn't even have a release date set, so how long will we be stuck with Jessie? 2020?

>>58618222
>dependency errors every time
nope
>not to mix branches
the only retard talking about mixing anything is you

>>58618032
Just use unstable, uses the latest packages and is still very stable. At least it has been for me.

>>58618248
I was giving you the benefit of doubt. Either you were saying mix packages from two branches or switch a server over to testing.

>>58618243
>how long will we be stuck
get a mac, worthless faggot

>>58618257
>reading comprehension
>>58618124
>use testing or unstable

>>58618243

You're not "stuck'' at all. If you want experimental software on a production server then go ahead and install arch (and see what happens).

>>58618185
not OP but I'm trying to decide between openSUSE and Fedora

thoughts?

>>58618243
If you want a newer software, use Testing.

>>58618260
>getting personally upset because I insulted his favorite server OS
Meanwhile every other distro meant for servers has more up to date packages and more consistent release cycles.

itt: tards that don't know they can compile from source

>>58618243
Yo dumbass, Debian releases occur every 2 years.

File: 1484845400797.gif (3MB, 1530x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1530x1080px

>>58618032
I'm using trisquel 7.
It's based on Ubuntu 14.04, but has all the non-free bits taken out, turning it into a FSF approved distro.
That said, so far it hasn't let me down. Packages are fairly up to date, and it also supports PPAs in case you need something not available in the package repo.

>>58618284
>but I'm too retarded to use them in the first place

>>58618303
Yes, I fell for the Debian meme in 2011. Some time in 2014 I realized the error of my ways and now in 2017 I am fed up enough to bother switching distros. This isn't Windows where you reinstall your OS every month, these are long term decisions.

>>58618321
You reinstall windows every month?

>>58618321
>in 2014 I realized the error of my ways
>but I insisted in 2015 due to my mental illness
anon...

>>58618327
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole

>>58618327
What did you expect? He's obviously retarded.

>>58618321
Something tells me if you stuck around with Debian for years you'd probably realize the testing branch was a thing by now. Or the debian backports repo

>>58618280
I have it installed on my rpi and desktop. The package manager is nice and the software is pretty up-to-date, if you install tumbleweed.

If you want a server or like KDE try openSUSE. If you want to use GNOME try Fedora.

>>58618350
I'm already using backports and testing on a server that is internet facing doesn't seem like a great idea.

>>58618348
>WAAAAAAAAAAHHH HE INSULTED DEBIAN

>>58618361
>testing on a server that is internet facing doesn't seem like a great idea
>arch sounds like a great idea tho
m8...

>>58618284

Ow wow. It almost looks like there is a variety of distro's each with their pros and cons and it's up to the user to pick the one which suits him/her best.

>>58618372
>it's up to the user
What if the user is retarded tho?

>>58618380

That's what arch is for.

>>58618361
Well using bleeding edge software isn't a good idea on an internet facing machine that's part of the reason why Debian is not a rolling release. But if you do that it's not really any worse than any rolling release distro you'll end up switching to.

>>58618369
Where did I say Arch sounds like a great idea?

>>58618372
Right, and Debian's absurd dedication to stability doesn't have any benefits clearly, since all these other server distros have no problems with security and stability, despite keeping more up to date.

>>58618396
Where are you people getting the idea I want bleeding edge packages on a rolling release distro?

>>58618406
>absurd dedication to stability doesn't have any benefits clearly
except stability
>all these other server distros have no problems with security
bwahahahaha
>and stability
at this point it's clear you don't even know what the fuck you're talking about

>>58618073
>not Mentos

>>58618406

> ...dedication to stability doesn't have any benefits...

Wew lad.

I have two suggestions for you:
* Don't use Debian.
* Let others decide for themselves which distro suits them best.

File: 1424678247263.gif (912KB, 322x429px) Image search: [Google]

912KB, 322x429px

>>58618450
this.

but really, fuck debian.

>>58618464
>mental illness

>>58618442
>except stability
Do you have some proof the stability of Debian is measurably better than something like CentOS? Ever hear of "diminishing returns"?

>bwahahahaha
Let me guess, you're assuming I mean they have absolutely 0 security issues to try and make it look like you have an argument. Typical /g/ retardation.

>at this point it's clear you don't even know what the fuck you're talking about
And you continue avoiding any argument. There's no point in responding past this post. Go ahead and have the final word so you can feel like you "won".

File: 1450886466103.gif (2MB, 540x303px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 540x303px

>>58618467
>MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM SOMEONE IS INSULTING MY CHOICE OF OS ON THE INTERNET
>just pretend they have a mental illness honey

fuck debian.

>>58618501
>some proof the stability of Debian is measurably better
What do you mean by stability?

>>58618455
>RHEL/CentOS are considered to be very stable
>Have newer packages than Debian
>More frequent release cycle

>>58618526
>muh choice of jerking it to chinese cartoons
yep, sure sounds like mental illness

>>58618467

Plz don't give that child another (You).

>>58618542
>RHEL/CentOS are considered to be very stable
By whom?
inb4
>more weasel words

>>58618501
>Do you have some proof the stability of Debian is measurably better than something like CentOS?
You realize CentOS does the same shit right? What are you even arguing about at this point?

>>58618563
Considering RHEL's popularity in enterprise, "enough".

>>58618581
CentOS has more up to date packages than a Debian install would. Just because CentOS has relatively old versions of packages compared to a desktop oriented install doesn't mean they're "doing the same thing".

>>58618599
>enterprise
>enough
>weasel words
Called it.

>>58618627
Okay you claim CentOS has more recent packages, go use that. What is the point in complaining about this?

>>58618627
Are you claiming RHEL/CentOS aren't very popular server distros? If anyone is weaseling out of an argument it's you.

>>58618599

> Considering RHEL's popularity in enterprise, "enough".

By that reasoning Windows is the most stable desktop OS ever.

File: 1479036045216.gif (15KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 400x300px

>>58618549
>stop liking what I don't like!

fuck debian.

>>58618638
Desktop computers don't have the same expectations servers do. RHEL isn't even a consumer OS, it's specifically meant for businesses. You're comparing Apples and Oranges.

>>58618647

>stop liking what I don't like!
>fuck debian.

If you don't get the irony of this you're clinically dead.

>>58618633
So your answer to the question "By whom are considered RHEL/CentOS very stable" is "by RHEL/CentOS, they're popular!".
Are you even capable of forming a coherent thought?
>If anyone is weaseling
Do you even understand the meaning of the expression "weasel words"?

>>58618696
>You're comparing Apples and Gnus.
ftfy

>>58618501
>something like CentOS
centos is not stable

>>58618068
>>58618051
Arch on servers in your parents' basement maybe.

>>58618696
>You're comparing Apples and Oranges.

Says the one who compares a commercial enterprise product to a universal programming system.

>>58618704
>So your answer to the question "By whom are considered RHEL/CentOS very stable" is "by RHEL/CentOS, they're popular!".
Yes, they're very popular in a market that demands stability and security. They are often mentioned alongside Debian as a choice distro for servers.

>Are you even capable of forming a coherent thought?
Yes, apparently you aren't however.

>Do you even understand the meaning of the expression "weasel words"?
In that case when are you going to define "stability"? I'm assuming you're one of the people who brought "stability" into this argument. You even tried to get me to define it before pivoting and trying to make it seem like I had no reason to assume RHEL/CentOS are "stable". Like I said, you're the one weaseling.

>>58618746

*oops

s/programming system/operating system/

It's late here

2 years is a normal cycle for LTS distributions like Debian stable, Red Hat or Ubuntu LTS

>>58618728
You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

>>58618750
>By whom
>Yes, they're very popular
I'm surprised you figured out how to breath.

"stable" unfortunately has two very different meanings
and it pains me to see how often they're confused

stable
a) reliable
b) consistent behavior (frozen APIs and ABIs)

The "stable" in the context of distributions is of type b).

>>58618813
That's a great strawman you're trying to setup, but I already explained the reasoning earlier.
Here you go again
>Yes, they're very popular in a market that demands stability and security.

>>58618806
I do, let me say it again: centos is not stable

>>58618836
CentOS doesn't break ABIs or APIs within a major release.
That is stable.

File: 1440541301884.gif (485KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

485KB, 500x281px

>>58618702
>If you don't get the irony of this you're clinically dead.

m8, I'm just shitposting and so are you.
We're both clinically dead.

But seriously, fuck debian.

>>58618846
Nice trying to save face kid. You're retarded, deal with it. You have no idea what you're talking about. I bet you make $10k a year.

>>58618845
>>58618822
Well that makes sense.

>>58618845
>CentOS doesn't break ABIs or APIs within a major release.
ok
>That is stable.
nope, not enough

>>58618871
You're confusing reliability with stability.

>>58618878
I'm not

>>58618892
Name your criteria for stability.

File: 1453828274040.jpg (10KB, 240x280px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 240x280px

>>58618851
>MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM LOOK I WON AN ARGUMENT ON THE INTERNET

The only thing that happened is that you felt the urge to reply to obvious bait.

>>58618928
frozen feature set; not breaking ABI and API is a subset of that

if don't appreciate debian policy then just use "muh higher version number" on some other version.

>>58618136
>what are backports

Can't you compile it yourself, you fucking scrub?

File: ebin.png (246KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 1920x1080px

>>58618032

>>58618281
wrong. use unstable. when shit breaks in testing no one cares.

>>58619618
Stuff doesn't just spontaneously break in testing though. Unstable is meant to shake out broken software, testing fixes minor bugs in whatever is left.

>>58618032
Well obviusly if outdated software is your biggest issue with debian, then unironically try arch. You will have muh bleeding edge.
After a while of using it as a server you just might appreciate debian's philosophy and see what's the tradeoff here and go back to it.

>>58619695
it doesn't spontaneously break but its basically a construction site. sometimes things have to remain broken for weeks or months for whatever reason while other areas are worked on or whatever broken needs is built.

unstable is a better choice.

>>58619726
theres nothing special about arch. if just randomly using the latest shit was a good idea don't you think debian would do it? they don't just work slow because they're Luddites. they actually have more devs (devs, not package maintainers) than any other distro.

>>58619924
>if just randomly using the latest shit was a good idea
It's neither good or bad idea. It depends on what you need.
Want bleeding edge for your desktop? Go for arch, and you'll be happy.
Want stability for your server? Go for debian, and you'll be happy.

>>58620028
or just use unstable on your desktop and stable on your server.

The answer is obviously Gentoo stable.

You can unmask packages that you want newer versions and mix stable with testing.

File: 1483287381633.png (125KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 320x320px

>muh newest and shiniest garbage
kys

>>58620098
but its new so it must be better

File: microsoft-windows-logo-vector-download.jpg (19KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 512x512px

>>58620157
Because we've seen that happen a lot.

>>58618032
ubuntu

>>58619695
>Unstable is meant to shake out broken software
that's what experimental is for

>>58620305
sarcasm bro

>>58618077
>stability
Not fixing years old bugs cause that would change things.

>>58620661
security.debian.org faggot