rolling distro... Mint?

[daacosta]

Well, I am going to try Linux Mint now based on Debian testing. The advantage seems to be that it needs to be installed just once and it is updated continuously.

I am very attracted to rolling distros but have never had the time, inclination, or bravery to even attempt to install Arch or Crux or... (Not bashing on those distros that must be very important but emphasizing on my incompetence and/or laziness to use them.)

How have you all liked Linux Mint?

[zenwalker]

Better'n 'buntus, easier'n aptosid, more stable'n antiX -- good choice!

[Etna]

Well, I am going to try Linux Mint now based on Debian testing. The advantage seems to be that it needs to be installed just once and it is updated continuously.

I am very attracted to rolling distros but have never had the time, inclination, or bravery to even attempt to install Arch or Crux or... (Not bashing on those distros that must be very important but emphasizing on my incompetence and/or laziness to use them.)

How have you all liked Linux Mint?

three things:

1) If you're going to get Mint, why not just get the version based on Ubuntu's release cycle? Debian is really notoriously outdated compared to any other distro.

2) Rolling releases are not as 'convenient' as you may think it sounds. Especially if you installed proprietary, binary-only drivers like those from Nvidia or ATI. And because a rolling release is always being updated, there drivers (and in essence, your computing experience) are also always breaking with each update. Experienced that with Arch, and got sick of it, reverted back to Fedora and OpenSUSE.

3) I never liked Mint from the start: too newbie friendly. It does nothing but make people (especially the noobs) believe that Linux is just another form of Windows.

[hazel]

I am very attracted to rolling distros but have never had the time, inclination, or bravery to even attempt to install Arch or Crux or... ?

Crux isn't a rolling release, unfortunately.

[oz]

Crux isn't a rolling release, unfortunately.

Right... I've always felt that CRUX would be the perfect candidate to become a rolling release so that those long compile times are spread out rather than having to do it all at "new release" time.

[reed9]

three things:

1) If you're going to get Mint, why not just get the version based on Ubuntu's release cycle? Debian is really notoriously outdated compared to any other distro.

2) Rolling releases are not as 'convenient' as you may think it sounds. Especially if you installed proprietary, binary-only drivers like those from Nvidia or ATI. And because a rolling release is always being updated, there drivers (and in essence, your computing experience) are also always breaking with each update. Experienced that with Arch, and got sick of it, reverted back to Fedora and OpenSUSE.

3) I never liked Mint from the start: too newbie friendly. It does nothing but make people (especially the noobs) believe that Linux is just another form of Windows.

To each their own. Debian Testing is not all that outdated and many people quite like rolling releases. Frankly, I've had less breakage with Arch Linux that I had running Debian Stable.

But, one area of concern I have, Debian Testing is in freeze now before it becomes the new stable, at which point there will be a LOT of new packages coming down the road. Mint has a good reputation, so hopefully they will deal with the chaos well, but I would expect some breakage when that occurs.

[Segfault]

Gentoo will do, only if you leave it alone for too long (6+ months) you will have some fun rolling it. No trouble with binary drivers, ebuilds can handle them.

[coopstah13]

Been using arch for over a year and have never had a problem with the binary drivers

Only had a breakage a sayre datehandful of times

Also debian testing isn't really that outdated, probably just as up to date as ubuntu after 6 months or so in my experience

[Manko10]

2) Rolling releases are not as 'convenient' as you may think it sounds. Especially if you installed proprietary, binary-only drivers like those from Nvidia or ATI. And because a rolling release is always being updated, there drivers (and in essence, your computing experience) are also always breaking with each update. Experienced that with Arch, and got sick of it, reverted back to Fedora and OpenSUSE.

I use Gentoo which is also a rolling release distro and am absolutely satisfied and had never such problems. Of course when your Xorg has been updated you also need to reemerge your graphics and input drivers etc. but that's the same as on other distros like Ubuntu with the only difference that you have to do it by hand.

I personally prefer rolling release distros for desktop as well as for server systems. I have to administrate a Debian Etch server and that regularly sends me round the bend because it's sometimes impossible to install new software due to package restrictions. I had to upgrade the whole distribution first but I can't. Whereas on Gentoo or Arch there wouldn't be a problem since I can use stable/old software at the same time as cutting edge. That's quite convenient.

[oz]

I've been running the rolling release of Arch Linux for about 6 years now and the only disadvantage that I've run across is that it wouldn't be so good for someone without an internet connection. Of course, I've had a connection the entire time so it's never been a disadvantage to me in any way that I can remember.

Now, I just have to keep paying the ISP for that internet connection and I'll likely remain happy!