However, some use cases prefer that they are able to use the same config for a long time, and when software updates frequently, system administration can become a cat-and-mouse game of “What config broke this time?” That’s not to say rolling release is bad, but sometimes it’s like using a power drill instead of a screw driver.

Also, I definitely feel like a stable distro is more likely to survive a software update after not using the computer for a few months to a year. Granted, I’ve had a Debian Testing (rolling release) install that did survive an upgrade after a year of non-use, but I’ve also seen Arch VMs that broke after just a couple months of non-use, forcing me to reinstall.

[–] Dumhuvud@programming.dev 17 points 2 days ago (3 children)

The term "stable" is not meant to be used as a synonym for "reliable" when describing distros.

[–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 points 22 hours ago

Depends on your definition of "reliable" 😉

[–] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 10 points 2 days ago

Exactly. The term "stable" in connection with software has the same problems of "free"; without understanding the context, it can be interpreted wrongly. "stable" type of distributions are meant to be "unchanging" in the sense of feature freeze. That off course depends on the distro or software in general how far this goes. Archlinux is "unstable" in the sense it is ever changing and adapting new technologies by breaking compatibility; something Debian does not.

[–] dataprolet@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 day ago

I know, I was referring to the heading implying otherwise:

It turned out to be more stable than I expected.

[–] PokerChips@programming.dev 3 points 1 day ago

Maybe you're right. But arch is stable.

[–] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 5 points 2 days ago

It depends on the distribution. In example Manjaro was unstable for me, while EndeavourOS is stable for the most part. In fact, Manjaro was holding back packages and is less rolling release than EndeavourOS, and yet less stable (for me). :D