Re: Tumbleweed vs 16.0

On 2026-06-26 09:49, David C Rankin wrote:
> 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.


You have forgotten issues :-D

For instance, TW suffered the migration from /etc more. It was TW where 
the migration was developed. I remember many discussions.


>
> 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.

Not only errors, but simply new features, new changes. Like the one 
about /etc.

There have been more, but I have not taken notes and my memory is no 
longer good.

>
> 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.
>

Not really... not of the same kind. I can think of VB in 16.0.


> 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 :)
>
I fight no daily problems :-)

I have problems once a year, when upgrading, then nothing for a year.

-- 
Cheers / Saludos,
                
		Carlos E. R.

   (from openSUSE 16.0 (Laicolasse))