What's your opinion about Fedora Rawhide? I doubt it's popular here.
Especially when compared to similar extremely bleeding edge distro such as arch, debian sid and opensuse tumbleweed. I'm planning for a minimal install with no gnome and other shit around, but before distro hopping I need info.
Also, rolling relase general.
bump
fedora rawhide is supposed to be really unstable and not for use in a normal desktop environment, just for testing
Same things goes for debian sid to be honest, but many people say they can use it just fine.
Debian says:
>Don't suffer from Shiny New Stuff Syndrome
>"sid" is subject to massive changes and in-place library updates. This can result in a very "unstable" system which contains packages that cannot be installed due to missing libraries, dependencies that cannot be fulfilled etc. Use it at your own risk!
Meanwhile Fedora says:
>Rawhide is targeted at advanced users, testers and package maintainers.
>Q: Doesn't rawhide eat babies / kill pets / burn down houses / break constantly?
>A: No. Please stop telling everyone that.
I wouldn't be surprised if they tell you it's very unstable just because stability is their main concern. They indeed are unstable if you compare them with Debian stable, but what if you compare them to other rolling release distro like Arch?
from what i've read i got the impression that it's a testing only version of fedora, not like debian sid or tumbleweed which are also for normal use cases. i don't know if it's less stable than those but i would presume so, but you could try it out if you want to.
rawhide has broken a few times in my experience. developers applying patches and changes doesn't always go smoothly. use the -testing repos if you're a fgt
I used to be a cancerous fedora fanboy, but one day an update broke my ability to browse network shares, and the only way for me to access network shares was to kill firewalld, as making network rules had no effect at all.
After fidgeting for a day I decided that it's not worth my time.
I've been a happy Ubuntu user ever since.
And since Canonical finally killed of Unity, Mir and upstart and directed it's resoures to cobbling together the best possible distribution from existing bits and pieces rather than trying to reinvent the wheel every two years I can only expect it to get better.
What about the distro in itself? Is it good?
What should I use if I want rolling release, fast updates and no derivatives distro?
even sid and testing are not real distro, they are part of the debian (stable) life cycle.
wtf is that? Just use arch if you want rolling release . you are already a special snowflake for using linux there is no reason to be so ridiculously contrarian.
I mean, yeah. fedora gets a lot of "just werks", "LE SYSTEMDICKS xD", "HARRY POTTERING BTFO", etcera memes but it's actually pretty decent. headers have to be installed using -dev packages which I find a little annoying sometimes if I'm compiling fizzzbu-Imean super serious code but it works very well. the package manager isn't very efficient on slow hardware but that's a minor gripe. fedora freezes major package (libreoffice, gnome - yanno, corporate stuff) versions and backports patches between releases but afaik most things get updates very quickly. if you want a bleeding edge rolling release distro then you should probably just use arch desu, fedora is more like ubuntu for people who are sick of debian/cannononononononial's shit
>if you want a bleeding edge rolling release distro then you should probably just use arch desu
How comes it has no competitors?
because what you're asking for is something of a niche that's filled just fine by arch for most people. or use debian testing or whatever. don't worry about it too much, it all werks just the same when a DE is installed
>rolling relese and update software
>something of a niche
It's basically what windows 10 is supposed to give you. I thought it was a mainstream thing.
Okay, I want control over my system and that is something of a niche. If we exclude derivatives there aren't even so many distro to chose, but I don't really know if I want to go back to arch. That distro and its userbase it's getting more cancerous year after year.
>Jumped from Fedora to Ubuntu
So you went from based distro to botnet Linux for normies.
Great
Install solus os
I heard dnf doesn't likes package downgrades. What do you do when something breaks?
>What's your opinion about Fedora Rawhide
>Unpaid beta tester at redhat
You should put that in your sesumè
downgrades werk on my machine just fine. the only problem I've had was with a borked third party rpm that didn't broke on upgrade and wouldn't let my downgrade because the previous version's postinstall script was broken by the changes made by the new files. can't remember how I fixed it, deleting the offending files manually probably
>rawhide is not a distro, it's fedora's testing cesspool
>sid is not a distro, it's debian's testing cesspool
Is Jow Forums really telling me to go back to arch?
Fedora itself is actually really great, handles a lot better than Ubuntu ever will, "just werks" is thrown around a lot, but the normal release hasn't broken on me to the point of it being an update that needs a computer restart. If you want something rolling, consider opensuse, stay away from arch-based distros, god damn broken garbage.
What about version upgrades? Are they painless?
Ive never had porblems upgrading, even into testing, the wiki is really helpful and they've made it really easy.
>It's supposed to be really unstable.
Is it really supposed to be unstable? Why? Because you suck at EEnglush?
How is debian sid compared to arch?
It's not.
it's shit
if you want a rolling release distro that doesn't break get Tumbleweed
shame about systemdicks tho
It's not comparable to Arch. Arch uses the latest STABLE packages. Rawhide and Debian testing use unstable packages.
They have different requirements when it comes to stability. What is considered stable by arch is considered highly unstable by debian even if it is the software has the same version. In fact debian testing is a lot more stable than arch.
Sid and Rawhide are not meant for alpha or beta software, if that's what are you thinking.
>debian testing is a lot more stable than arch
Not true. You're talking out of your ass stfu.
No you.
You can argue between debian unstanle and arch, but ebian testing it is more stable than arch without a doubt.
I've used both extensively Debian testing is a broken mess
Use debian testing
if you don't know how to use it