I am a little biased because I’ve been using Debian professionally for many years now but we don’t deserve Debian. It is fantastically stable and reliable and makes an excellent platform for running your services off of. If you are at all interested in offering some time and energy to the open source community, consider adopting a Debian package!
I should be more clear: specifically I was rebuilding a Docker image based on Debian and needed Node.js for one build step, then Ruby for another as well as the final image.
In the Dockerfile there were a ton of weird commands for simply installing Node.js and Ruby whereas on Alpine Linux I could simply install the needed versions from apk. I understand it’s preferable to build these from scratch but in the case of Node.js I was looking to simply compile a bunch of assets then throw away the layer.
I could’ve spent a bunch of time figuring it out for Debian but I wanted a smaller image in the end anyway too.
This is what I specifically hate about building Docker images based on Debian. Half your Dockerfile ends up mucking about with third-party repositories, verifying keys, etc.
That’s how I feel about arch, it’s not “stable” but the few issues I’ve had they typically have it fixed with an update within hours.
I do have to clarify when I switched to arch from windows my entire computer was brand new and practically no other distro booted or if it installed it dumped me to a black screen.
After running my server on archlinux with the stable kernel for 7 years I did install Debian on my new server. Zfs just required an older lts kernel than I could get on arch without a ton of hassle. I didn’t need it on my Mac mini with an external hard drive plugged in. From my experience it’s not very different to maintain compared to arch but it’s nice having built in automation instead of writing my own.
Man it’s weird using a system of what I can guess is a bunch of bash scripts on Debian to set things up compared to just using the tools built into and written for systemd.
“stable” in this case means that it doesn’t change often. Debian stable is called that because no major version changes are performed during the entire cycle of a release.
It doesn’t mean “stable” as in “never crashes”, although Debian is good at that too.
Arch is definitely not “stable” using that definition!
Yeah, I know the definition. I knew someone would quote it verbatim, someone always does. I quoted it because it’s not the word I would use. I like scheduled or versioned releases better but someone always disagrees with me. As far as I’ve seen it’s a major/minor version release cycle anyway.
I am a little biased because I’ve been using Debian professionally for many years now but we don’t deserve Debian. It is fantastically stable and reliable and makes an excellent platform for running your services off of. If you are at all interested in offering some time and energy to the open source community, consider adopting a Debian package!
I’m thinking about a Linux laptop with FOSS software for my business actually, Lemmy’s relentless horde of pro-Linux propaganda has won me over
(OK I’ve always liked FOSS I’ve just never taken the jump)
I had to step away from it because packages are just too old.
Have you considered using
testinginstead ofstableor Siduction?I should be more clear: specifically I was rebuilding a Docker image based on Debian and needed Node.js for one build step, then Ruby for another as well as the final image.
In the
Dockerfilethere were a ton of weird commands for simply installing Node.js and Ruby whereas on Alpine Linux I could simply install the needed versions fromapk. I understand it’s preferable to build these from scratch but in the case of Node.js I was looking to simply compile a bunch of assets then throw away the layer.I could’ve spent a bunch of time figuring it out for Debian but I wanted a smaller image in the end anyway too.
They are. You can get .debs through other sources quite often, though.
This is what I specifically hate about building Docker images based on Debian. Half your
Dockerfileends up mucking about with third-party repositories, verifying keys, etc.That’s how I feel about arch, it’s not “stable” but the few issues I’ve had they typically have it fixed with an update within hours.
I do have to clarify when I switched to arch from windows my entire computer was brand new and practically no other distro booted or if it installed it dumped me to a black screen.
After running my server on archlinux with the stable kernel for 7 years I did install Debian on my new server. Zfs just required an older lts kernel than I could get on arch without a ton of hassle. I didn’t need it on my Mac mini with an external hard drive plugged in. From my experience it’s not very different to maintain compared to arch but it’s nice having built in automation instead of writing my own.
Man it’s weird using a system of what I can guess is a bunch of bash scripts on Debian to set things up compared to just using the tools built into and written for systemd.
“stable” in this case means that it doesn’t change often. Debian stable is called that because no major version changes are performed during the entire cycle of a release.
It doesn’t mean “stable” as in “never crashes”, although Debian is good at that too.
Arch is definitely not “stable” using that definition!
Yeah, I know the definition. I knew someone would quote it verbatim, someone always does. I quoted it because it’s not the word I would use. I like scheduled or versioned releases better but someone always disagrees with me. As far as I’ve seen it’s a major/minor version release cycle anyway.