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.

For instance, you are hitting the problem with FFx displaying about the 
world futbol cup to you, but not to me ;-)

> 
> 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 :)
> 


-- 
Cheers / Saludos,

		Carlos E. R.

   (from openSUSE 16.0 (Laicolasse))

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

wmMEABEIACMWIQQZEb51mJKK1KpcU/W1MxgcbY1H1QUCaj6x5AUDAAAAAAAKCRC1MxgcbY1H1czs
AJ41jbikIa17WlaOvGqWt2oMkPC1awCdEqB3PcGfuYhSr71lNNdXSX4GQ5U=
=oDeb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----