HN Explorer

Ask HN: What is your favorite rolling Linux distro?

29 points by metadat ↗ HN
What is your favorite rolling Linux distro, and why?

* Arch

* OpenSUSE Tumbleweed

* Others?

The "List of Rolling Linux Distributions" Wikipedia page was recently deleted (May 2024), but here is the most recent archive.org snapshot:

https://web.archive.org/web/20240503140631/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Rolling_Release_Linux_distributions

66 comments

[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 127 ms ] thread
rurban
CentOS of course
JonChesterfield
Centos got killed by IBM a while ago, do you mean the fedora-alike stream thing that squats on the same name?
rurban
Yes, it's called CentOS. It's the stable variant of Fedora Rawhide. There's nothing better rolling on the market
mikae1
> it's called CentOS

CentOS Stream?

rurban
Yes, sorry, that's what I meant. There is no original centos (ie CentOS Linux) anymore, only the streaming variant, which gets from Fedora ELN, which gets from Rawhide.
Zambyte
GNU Guix. It is nice to have atomic and reversible operations, it is extremely easy to extend (I have even pushed package defitions upstream, which I have never done with any other distro), it is easy to use the package manager (though unfortunately not install) without root access.
JonChesterfield
Debian. Because it's worked almost all the time for a couple of decades and I am not a careful sysadmin. Wayland does not work very well though and it's getting increasingly hard to burn that crap out.

I thought I should move to guix. I started that and ran into the non-free kernel / firmware zealotry, concluded that was deeply stupid and stayed put.

edit: Debian call their rolling release sid or unstable, the slower rolling testing is also fine.

metadat
Do you have to do explicit upgrades for e.g. 11 -> 12, or how does it work with sid?

It sounds like maybe not..

> From a software developer's point of view, Debian Sid and Arch are both "unstable" release streams. That means that they don't have versioned releases; they just have one indefinite release stream. There is no formal schedule or window for any class of changes.

JonChesterfield
Sid is a rolling release in the same fashion as other distros. New code comes in whenever you update which probably works sanely but might be transiently broken.

If you follow "testing", you get a slightly strange cadence where things change quickly just after a stable release and gradually slows down until stable is created, then picks up pace again.

A reasonable choice is to follow whichever named release is currently in testing. Currently that's "trixie". It's identical to the testing release until the fork happens, at which point the local install will be an instance of stable. It's very easy to forget you've done that until you notice some program you're running is older than you expected, at which point upgrading to testing to find the newer one is straightforward.

The machine I'm writing this on is running debian unstable. Installed ~ four years ago when I bought the machine, expecting it to continue working until the nvme burns out.

jcelerier
Having used Debian stable, then testing, then sid, then migrated to archlinux, I can very confidently say that an arch Linux system will break infinitely less than Debian testing & sid
SauciestGNU
My use case is mainly containerization and container orchestration, but in 12 years I've had Sid break on me once, and testing never. Maybe I got lucky.
adamomada
Two you should look at imho

- Void Linux

- Chimera Linux

I can’t decide on a favourite, but they’re both very interesting projects.

branon
Void does this "stable rolling" thing which I've liked a lot, definitely a favorite. Haven't tried Chimera yet.
jrepinc
openSUSE Tumbleweed, because it is the most stable and predictable rolling-release distro. When they update a package to a new version the do quite some automated QA testing on it so it works properly, and also on the related dependencies so that all integration tests still pass before they release thw updated package to the repository. Also the snapper is very nicely integrated into the system, and before each updated a system snapshot is taken and also another snapshot is taken after the update. And the snapshots are automatically added to GRUB boot loader. So even if something goes wrong with the updated and th QA did not catch the problem you can still easily and quickly switch to an old working snapshot. In addition to this they also have one of the best KDE Plasma desktop integrations into the distro and their YaST graphical control/settings center is awesome.
mijoharas
Arch.

I started using it basically by accident. I got a new computer, tried installing Ubuntu and it just wouldn't boot. Someone told me maybe the drivers weren't in Ubuntu yet and I should try Arch.

Getting it installed took some work since I'd never really used Linux before, but the wiki is such an amazing resource, and by necessity you learn a lot about your machine.

Now after a decade of use it's very much _my_ distro, and I can understand the whole thing.

Also, the aur is such an amazingly useful resource. Everything in the main distro is also put together in a very sensible way.

jmclnx
I am not a fan of rolling releases, but many people use Slackware Current as one. So if I had to chose a kind of rolling Linux, that would be my choice.

**But** Slackware Current is really a Alpha/Beta Test System for Slackware Release.

Goofy_Coyote
Arch, if I want to revive the 20-something geek in me. I’ve been using Debian in prod for very long time, but recently switched to Centos (and RHEL). No idea when or why I got so radicalized against Centos/RHEL that I didn’t even want to try it for years, but after working with it for a few months, I’m absolutely in love. When I started using Linux years ago, I had this feeling of order, that it just made sense. But it died with all the bloat and faction wars in the community on how things should be done (e.g network management). With RHEL, it all makes sense again. I know what’s going on and I am in control.
ensignavenger
What features of RHEL do you prefer over Debian?
Goofy_Coyote
Package management is much better, and the documentation is phenomenal.
unforeseen9991
CentOS isn't the CentOS of previous years, which may have something to do with it. IBM killed it and now it's some sort of Fedora stream type thing that just reused the name?
azurenumber
Arch Linux, because of Arch User Repository and documentation
huriegas
Arch. The documentation, packages, community and flexibility are great.
kn100
Tumbleweed. I've also experimented with NixOS which I enjoyed but it was just too disruptive to my workflow.
unmole
OpenSUSE Tumbleweed

A stable rolling distro with automatic snapshots. Packages are up to date without being bleeding edge. If an update breaks something, simply revert to an older snapshot.

lbhdc
I have been seriously considering switching to tumbleweed (currently running fedora, previously arch). What kind of sharp edges have you bumped into?
unmole
The installer doesn't have the polish you see in Ubuntu or Fedora. I chose full disk encryption and somehow ended up having to enter the password twice after boot. I had to re-install to fix that.

Apart from that, it has been smooth sailing.

Rinzler89
>and somehow ended up having to enter the password twice after boot

It's not "somehow", it's by design, Suse encrypts boot and root partitions and so you need to enter the password twice to unlock them both. The "fix" is to use an encrypted LVM for all partitions and so you enter the password only once.

rgrieselhuber
I switched from Manjaro to OpenSuse Tumbleweed and couldn’t be happier. Didn’t have the time to screw around with Arch but with OpenSuse everything just works.
jamesponddotco
Another vote for Tumbleweed here.

Heck, the thing is so stable I use it on production servers. The combination of their automated QA plus your own QA on staging is the bomb.

loudmax
Arch.

I ran Gentoo from around 2005-2010. Getting into Gentoo was highly educational and fun in it's own way, but it broke way too often and the fun wore off after fixing wifi the third or fourth time.

Coming from Gentoo, Arch has been extremely stable. In fact, in my experience Arch has been more stable and reliable than RHEL or even proprietary operating systems like Windows. I'm running the Sway window manager, so pretty minimalist. YMMV, especially if you're running a heavier desktop like KDE or GNOME.

Arch may be the highest profile mainstream rolling distro. Sometimes it's easier to go with the flow.

smitty1e
All of this. Plus, when one wants to be just a bit edgy, AUR is there for you.
aniviacat
NixOS unstable.

Is very up to date. Is very stable/recoverable. Has many packages. Has reproducible packages. Has a great config system (I do not miss having to learn a new config syntax for each package). Allows for easy compartmentalization of packages.

dpola
Hands down Debian.

From all I tested, it offers best synergy for all I wanted. Biggest package repo, every problem is nicely searchable and has nice community.

jtriangle
Manjaro, it's basically arch with some herbs and spices.

I do realize that the whole point of arch is that you're the one with the spice rack, but, I generally like what manjaro's doing. Not to say it's been all roses, just that it's been fun.

lucasoshiro
I've been using Manjaro for 9 years.

Once I installed Arch in my PC, I spent some hours configuring it according to what I like. After that, I looked it and thought "ok, now I have a Manjaro".

Manjaro is a little bit bloated, but it is faster for me to remove the bloat instead of configuring everything.

Other use cases (e.g. using in Lima, WSL or a local container) it doesn't matter, so I use Arch.

LorenDB
openSUSE Tumbleweed is amazing, especially with its automatic snapshotting every time you install updates. That has saved me a handful of times when Mesa broke on my system.
eth0up
I got 10 years out of my Debian box. When I replaced the harddrive I did a fresh install.

I always go with Testing and have had a few hiccups and issues along the way, but nothing unfixable in short time.

Wanting toget away from systemd, I attempted a Devuan install but bungled it and went back to deb.

I did Arch for a few years but am not a newfangled fanatic so gave up on that. As most say, the Arch documentation is tip top.

lucasoshiro
Manjaro, for my personal desktop use. Not because it is the best, but because I like the Arch base, and it is easier for me to install Manjaro and remove what I don't want than to install Arch and configure what I want.

It could be Endeavour. I never used it, even though it looks like it would suit better my use case, but it has a smaller userbase than Manjaro.

bravetraveler
I like how Arch and Gentoo both make it feel more like you're making your installation.

Tumbleweed is closer to where I am now, Fedora -- I've moved away from rolling releases. I appreciate a very light dance for planning upgrades.

All told: both OpenSUSE/Fedora invest in packaging that I also appreciate; mostly-binary but can easily opt into source-based installations

smitty1e
These distros are great on individual gear, but I have yet to ever hear of a production shop running any sort of rolling distro.

The time/skill required to run it simply isn't practical when some sort of business model is at stake.

bravetraveler
Totally agree. Rolling releases are too much like gambling; time is far too much of a factor!

I'd argue most shops could afford to relax a bit though. Not rolling releases... but newer ones.

Not to dismiss the boneheaded-ness of the change: I'd bet CentOS Stream is technically fine for most. Whatever 'point release' is probably fine.

That leads me to Fedora. Some predictability through the six-month release schedule yet still recent software... and no substantial change in the social contract.

aloisdg
From Manjaro for a few years to Arch for another year to Endeavour since 2021. EndeavourOS is a pre-configured Arch. Good for me.