Re: Tumbleweed vs 16.0

On 6/26/26 2:03 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> Of course they do. But what I said is undeniable, it was in other words 
> in the wiki. The goal of TW is to have the newest software possible, so 
> the new features and the new problems (that nobody knows about yet) are 
> going to hit TW. This is also the appeal of TW, have the newest software 
> possible.

Point made, but ...

After using TW for 2+ years and Arch for 17+ years, there really isn't 
much downside to the new problems that nobody knows about yet.

Think of it this way, as projects mature, generally the updates and new 
releases improve upon what currently exists. Many of the changes made 
are fixes to bugs identified in the current code. Keeping current with 
upstream, is more than simple having the latest version, it is having 
the version containing all the latest security updates -- without having 
to wait until a fix is backported to whatever version is being run.

It's not like TW or Arch package beta-software. Quite the contrary, the 
goal is to stay current with the upstream *stable* release.

Now, sure, you are correct in the fact that new software, especially new 
major version update that make large changes to existing package have 
the risk of an uncaught error slipping by (Apparmor 5), but honestly 
those are "pink elephant" rare.

I've had 1 issue on TW in 2+ years that prevented smb from starting 
(Apparmor 5). A quick aa-teardown and restart done.

In 17 years on Arch (as a server), I've had 3 issue, none within the 
last decade. (Apache 2.2 - 2.4 update, ssh, and one other minor issue). 
Only the ssh update in 2012/13? prevented remote administration. The 
apache update just created an unanticipated config update scramble.

I'd wager you have had at least an equal number of SNAFUs with Leap in 
that same period of time.

What a rolling-release teaches, if you want to avoid most issues, is 
simply to get familiar with the changes in each upgrade. Not all of 
them, but you know the handful of packages or so your box really depends 
on. So, before choosing update, you just scan through the, e.g. "New 
Tumbleweed snapshot 20260623 released!" announcements to know what's 
coming, and scan the zypper dup proposed changes before hitting return 
at the [Y/n]? prompt.

Arch makes is really easy too. They have an RSS feed for packages in the 
testing repos and the core repository. So you know what's coming before 
the updates are available (testing), and then know when they are 
available (core).

I don't know. I was skeptical too that openSUSE could pull off the 
rolling-release and make it stable compared to the decades of practice 
Arch has had. openSUSE did just fine, TW exceeded expectations and 
rivals Arch in stability and reliability. Only real difference is the TW 
updates are generally a bit larger that Arch updates. Not by much, but a 
good 40% or so on average. That's just a difference in 
packaging/split-packages, the dependencies driving rebuilds, etc...

Take an old box and make it a TW box. You may even find you are fighting 
less problem on a daily basis :)

-- 
David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.