what makes a linux distro a "good" or "stable"

>string args[]
disgusting

>>61626861
>what makes a linux distro a "good"
Define "good".

>or "stable" server distro?
Distros intended for server use tend to use well-tested packages, and often do not offer significant updates to packages (except security updates) between major releases. This is to avoid breaking API/ABIs and causing downtime.

>What is even the difference between a desktop and server versions?
Distros intended for desktop use ship with Xorg and one or more window managers/desktop environments, and usually include a number of convenience features/packages like mount helpers for external media (e.g. USB flash drives) and GUI configuration software.

>>61627058
thank you for the reply
>define "good"
idk but I see people on /g/ talk shit about certain server distros while claiming the one they use is better

>>61628295
much of this is personal preference, but there is a method to the madness.

some distros carry no distinction between server and workstation, ie archlinux or gentoo. They are so minimal that you install only what you want and they are what you make of them.

Some distros release a server and workstation verison because it depends what software they package with it like this anon said: >>61627058

For example, Ubuntu workstation will have hundreds of extra applications and a GUI desktop. Ubuntu server will have no GUI, and bare minimum applications. You install what functionality you will need.

in the end the best I can describe it is:

Workstation = bunch of stuff packaged together so the plebeian user wont have to find and isntall new packages as often

Server = minimal install. Servers generally serve only one purpose. You decide and install what that purpose is.

>>61626861
>what makes a linux distro a "good" or "stable" server distro?
It does what you want it to crashing as little as you need it to

Source Mage

>>61628624
This is not a good answer. This is a terrible answer, actually.

>>61628690
Well OP wrote a terrible question

>>61627058
>>61628591
not him but would debian be a good choice for desktop usage? I'd like something stable

>>61628714
Even so, you answered it in such a way that you did not really answer it; you did not give any meaningful insight or input. You just wrote something because you felt like posting.

>>61626861

>>>/lgbt/8650537
>>>/lgbt/8650537

>>61628729
Debian is available in 3 flavors: stable, testing, and unstable.

Stable is, as the name suggests, stable. It has older packages and an older kernel, however. That's the tradeoff. The kernel may not support newer hardware. It receives the most attention from the Debian security team.

Testing has more recent packages, though usually not the very newest. It's less stable than stable, but in practice it's usually fine for personal/desktop use. However, the attitude of the Debian security team toward testing is "Eh, we'll get to it if we get to it." I chose not to use it for that reason, but again, in practice you might not run into any problems if you update regularly and any security flaws are fixed in newer versions.

Unstable is where packages are staged before they move to testing. Most of the packages in unstable are quite new, though they might be a version behind the very newest for some. Unstable is not supported by the Debian security team. If you use it for long enough, you will experience breakages. Sometimes it will be something minor, like a non-critical piece of software, but sometimes it will be a show stopper.

Honestly, if you want a Debian-esque desktop, just use Ubuntu. It's 90% Debian, based on testing (but it receives security updates from the Ubuntu security team), and, as long as you download one of the non-server versions (Kubuntu, Lubuntu, regular Ubuntu, etc.) it will come packaged and configured for desktop use. It's quite stable.

>>61629436
I'm asking because I'm using LTS (aimed for something stable) Xubuntu right now and feels unstable as fuck, i get like two random pop-ups with "x program encountered an error/problem" per day and according to some googling this seems pretty common on *buntus.

Thanks for that detailed reply though, i think I'll try with Debian stable according to your post.

>>61626861

Just use FBSD, its a proper server OS.
Linux is a desktop/server compromise.

>>61629829
Why not openbsd?

>>61629724
ubuntu is unstable as fuck.

it really is.

if you want to keep the GUI use fedora.

if you want to do everything yourself use gentoo or arch

File: brewery-01.jpg (244KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 1500x1000px

>>61629436

I think the best answer in relation to Debian and stable versions is here

http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?p=531279#p531279

Excellent answer to why the versions are as they are.

>>61626861
>indenting the while loop
>not putting brackets

>>61629724
That's odd. I've been using Lubuntu for a while (switched from Arch), and it has been rock solid so far. I often leave it running for several days at a time, and I haven't had any crashes or memory leaks or anything.

I ran Kubuntu several years ago, and it was also trouble-free.

If stability is your #1 goal, however, Debian stable is a good choice.

>>61630290
Ive found lubuntu to be the most stable flavor of non-server ubuntu.

Kubuntu I had trouble with

>>61630475
I had a fair bit of trouble with KDE on Arch, but not Kubuntu.

>>61630623
i've never actually ran a DE on arch, ive always used it for servers and haven't felt the need for DE

>>61628729

Yes.

Infact Debian is THE BEST desktop distro out there. You can always be 100% sure that it works and is stable.

>>61630710
I disagree.

I totally disagree.

Fedora is much more stable and professionally oriented.

>>61630710

I also disagree, as a Debian user.

It's an excellent distro. But it is only for people who know what they are doing. I see too many people fucking up stable versions because they don't know what they're doing.

Ubuntu/Mint are much less screw-upable and idiot-proof.