Stability of Linux

  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2

18 Replies - 2720 Views - Last Post: 09 September 2012 - 07:19 PM

#1 Lemur  Icon User is offline

  • Pragmatism over Dogma
  • member icon


Reputation: 1368
  • View blog
  • Posts: 3,443
  • Joined: 28-November 09

Stability of Linux

Posted 18 August 2012 - 11:20 PM

In the past few months I've near completely lost faith in Linux. Half the packages are mismatches and everything is a mess. It's borderline impossible to get any real work done on a patched together system that has no coherent package management.

I've gone through the following, each of which I've abandoned out of annoyance:
  • Ubuntu
  • Kubuntu
  • Chakra
  • Mint
  • Fedora
  • OpenSUSE


If anyone has suggestions of a different distro to try out, feel free. In the mean time I'm going back to BSD land where I know its safe and packages are actually monitored and kept control of.

Is this only me, or am I just going out of my mind?

Is This A Good Question/Topic? 0
  • +

Replies To: Stability of Linux

#2 Atli  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Lover
  • member icon

Reputation: 3719
  • View blog
  • Posts: 5,990
  • Joined: 08-June 10

Re: Stability of Linux

Posted 19 August 2012 - 12:39 AM

Ubuntu has been working pretty well for me so far. I don't think I've ever found a package in the Ubuntu repositories that failed to install properly. Occasionally 3rd party packages will fail, but that's to be expected.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#3 modi123_1  Icon User is online

  • Suitor #2
  • member icon



Reputation: 9197
  • View blog
  • Posts: 34,551
  • Joined: 12-June 08

Re: Stability of Linux

Posted 19 August 2012 - 12:48 AM

I tried this crunchbang Debian.... not a fan.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#4 baavgai  Icon User is online

  • Dreaming Coder
  • member icon

Reputation: 5826
  • View blog
  • Posts: 12,680
  • Joined: 16-October 07

Re: Stability of Linux

Posted 19 August 2012 - 04:21 AM

Ubuntu is current yet buggy, because they're screwing their own display manager.

Kubuntu and Chakra use the newest KDE, which I found to be unreliable at best. It even made Slackware unstable. Chakra, in particular, trying to support the newest KDE toys, was epicly unreliable.

Mint is trying to maintain gnome old guard. However, they're traveling down a fork, which is probably a problem.

Fedora was never mean to be stable, it's where Red Hat throws things to watch them break.

OpenSUSE... is tainted.

If you want real stable, you have to go back in time...

Red Hat is about as solid as they come. They have the cash to make sure that's the case. CentOS is a reliable free version of Red Hat. Using CentOS you go back to Gnome 2. And, it's good. I run this at work.

Debian, current stable, is sturdy.

If you like the *buntus, look at Lubuntu. It uses LXDE and has impressed me by running well on an ancient netbook of mine.

Short answer, all the new fangled display managers suck. Find something proven.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#5 RudiVisser  Icon User is offline

  • .. does not guess solutions
  • member icon

Reputation: 1003
  • View blog
  • Posts: 3,562
  • Joined: 05-June 09

Re: Stability of Linux

Posted 19 August 2012 - 04:36 AM

Never liked Linux so much for anything other than a server platform, but that said, I have and do use it as a desktop when I just need something quick to do that doesn't need everything that Windows offers.

What I've found is that Ubuntu would generally be the "most compatible" of all of the distributions out there, simply because it's aimed at first time linux users and attempts to hide the underlying linux platform as much as it can.

However when it comes to what I need, which is something stable, quick, reliable and no-fuss, I choose a base install of ArchBang, which is based (obviously) off Arch. It's package manager pacman is the simplest I've found to use including using it to update a whole system, and honestly I've never had any issues with this at all.

Like baavgai said, these new fancy WMs don't do anything useful really, Archbang comes with Openbox as it's WM which is simple to use, easy to customise and pretty damn powerful, whilst using minimal system resources.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#6 xclite  Icon User is offline

  • LIKE A BOSS
  • member icon


Reputation: 905
  • View blog
  • Posts: 3,167
  • Joined: 12-May 09

Re: Stability of Linux

Posted 19 August 2012 - 07:56 AM

I've also found OpenBox to be simple and reliable. Unity is garbage as mentioned and I need to rip it out of my desktop at work. I also hear good things about the XFCE desktop environment.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#7 GunnerInc  Icon User is offline

  • "Hurry up and wait"
  • member icon




Reputation: 858
  • View blog
  • Posts: 2,281
  • Joined: 28-March 11

Re: Stability of Linux

Posted 19 August 2012 - 08:25 AM

Back in time? I still have my RH 5.0 CD's I bought in a store back in the day. Have RH 9 on CDs too from somewhere. I always felt RH was stable. I use Mint and have no problems with it.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#8 Lemur  Icon User is offline

  • Pragmatism over Dogma
  • member icon


Reputation: 1368
  • View blog
  • Posts: 3,443
  • Joined: 28-November 09

Re: Stability of Linux

Posted 19 August 2012 - 08:26 AM

I'm going back to BSD land, where the packages are stable and the display managers don't crash every 20 minutes and require almost completely refurbing xwindows config files.

PC-BSD is where I'm headed right now. I love OpenBSD, but I still have a thing for minecraft and it's been said that it's a stunt to get Java to work on that thing.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#9 blackcompe  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Lover
  • member icon

Reputation: 1155
  • View blog
  • Posts: 2,533
  • Joined: 05-May 05

Re: Stability of Linux

Posted 19 August 2012 - 09:12 AM

I had a few configuration issues after Unity was introduced, but generally speaking, Ubuntu runs fine for me. It rarely crashes.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#10 RudiVisser  Icon User is offline

  • .. does not guess solutions
  • member icon

Reputation: 1003
  • View blog
  • Posts: 3,562
  • Joined: 05-June 09

Re: Stability of Linux

Posted 19 August 2012 - 11:01 AM

View PostLemur, on 19 August 2012 - 04:26 PM, said:

I'm going back to BSD land, where the packages are stable and the display managers don't crash every 20 minutes and require almost completely refurbing xwindows config files.

Never had this on linux, and found that package management for BSD is fairly limited (talking from a FreeBSD/NetBSD perspective). That said, I do much prefer BSD.

This post has been edited by RudiVisser: 19 August 2012 - 11:01 AM

Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#11 KieranQuinn  Icon User is offline

  • New D.I.C Head

Reputation: -2
  • View blog
  • Posts: 6
  • Joined: 15-August 12

Re: Stability of Linux

Posted 19 August 2012 - 11:59 AM

I can't decide what distro to stick with. Every one I've tried in the past has a flaw. Now, I've resorted to trying multiple different distro's and environments in VirtualBox.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#12 Lemur  Icon User is offline

  • Pragmatism over Dogma
  • member icon


Reputation: 1368
  • View blog
  • Posts: 3,443
  • Joined: 28-November 09

Re: Stability of Linux

Posted 19 August 2012 - 12:30 PM

I work from an OpenBSD for servers perspective, I wanted Desktop to be run and done without a bunch of customization and whatnot. The main annoyance I have is that Linux has started to shift from "it just works" to trying to be the latest, greatest, and shiniest thing available.

BSD has always had my love for not jumping onto every new and patchworked thing they can find. Stability and integrity is the one thing I can always count on with BSD.
Was This Post Helpful? 1
  • +
  • -

#13 baavgai  Icon User is online

  • Dreaming Coder
  • member icon

Reputation: 5826
  • View blog
  • Posts: 12,680
  • Joined: 16-October 07

Re: Stability of Linux

Posted 19 August 2012 - 03:02 PM

The level of instability described, across multiple distros, sounds atypical in the extreme. I'd be inclined to blame the hardware, at that point. Some less than optimal driver that has to do some emulation, due to proprietary issues. Or a custom proprietary driver. Some proprietary linux drivers I've used are a vast improvement, some are as stable as junkies in withdrawal.

Even a worst case linux system is hard to fully crash. A single process rarely has that ability. Most "crashes" are really just freeze ups of the X system. That X system is mostly shared between linux and the BSDs...
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#14 Lemur  Icon User is offline

  • Pragmatism over Dogma
  • member icon


Reputation: 1368
  • View blog
  • Posts: 3,443
  • Joined: 28-November 09

Re: Stability of Linux

Posted 19 August 2012 - 04:58 PM

Granted. It's a collection of that, package mismatches, gcc not being properly linked, and various other little bugs that I tend to notice very quickly.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#15 no2pencil  Icon User is online

  • Toubabo Koomi
  • member icon

Reputation: 5307
  • View blog
  • Posts: 27,203
  • Joined: 10-May 07

Re: Stability of Linux

Posted 20 August 2012 - 12:44 PM

View PostLemur, on 19 August 2012 - 02:20 AM, said:

Is this only me, or am I just going out of my mind?

You should move OpenSuse closer to the top of that list. It's about as much Linux as OSX is FreeBSD.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2