Hello Friends.

I really miss one thing in Windows Operating System.
I was able to update my application softwares without upgrading the whole Windows.

But in linux e.g. there are distribution on one side like Debian where I have all stable base and system packages but old softwares.
On the other hand, there is Arch Linux which have always latest softwares but a frequently changing base system. Hence lot of data is required for updating entire system.

I would like to know whether there is an Linux (or other e.g. BSD) based distro/OS which have a good fixed base in a release but can have latest softwares. So that I do not have to update the whole OS just to get some latest user mode application softwares. Hence I would be able to update my regular applications without updating my kernel, base utilities etc.

1 members found this post helpful.

Windows uses far more download for updates + software than 2 or 3 linux systems combined. If I had to guess it's because of shared libraries. There is no distro that only updates the software packages and not the os itself. Mainly because there isn't really a separation between the 2. I suppose in Debian ( I would guess this can be done in other distros ) is you put a hold on the os packages, but theres a few thousand of those so that would be a long road to follow.

What you are describing is Debian Testing (currently called "Jessie"). I can update my system every day if I wish (it takes about 3 minutes on average) but the system continues to run as before with many of the updates barely perceptible. For home usage it is certainly stable enough for just about all users. I don't use Windows but I was under the impression that the transition between one version and another (XP-Vista-Windows7-Windows8...) was much more traumatic than what you get with most linux rolling releases (such as Debian Testing). This is why I use Debian Testing -- it runs virtually trouble free and also keeps me up to date with advances in various applications.
jdk

Do you mean with Debian Testing I can partially update only my applications. e.g. in Arch Linux to update a single application I have to update the entire distribution otherwise it will surely break. Hence partial upgrades are unsupported in Arch Linux.

Looks like it is somewhat difficult to do in Linux due to shared code.
But the person started the thread suggested Manjaro.
Looks like it may be a good candidate.

Thanks dugan, for giving me this link as I was unable to find out it in my search queries.

Of course. you open a terminal, become root or use sudo and issue the commands:
This will only upgrade the packages that have a more recent version than the one currently installed.
A typical upgrade can vary between 0-100 packages (25 might be an average). Obviously the longer you wait between upgrades the more packages there will be to upgrade.
jdk

Thanks jdkaye.
But I think I have been misunderstood in this. Let me clarify this. I want to fix my base packages like kernel/systemd etc. to a fixed version but other applications to be upgraded.
But as I know Debian Testing will also upgrade its kernel and other base utility, and not fixed like Debian Stable.

I have searched the problem but it seems that in Linux this looks nearly impossible. Since packages dependencies would not allow having important base packages locked in version, at the same time having user applications upgraded.

Guys. What about FreeBSD? I know that it separates base and user applications. Does it manages applications upgrades without upgrading base like MS Windows?
Also I think Gentoo will also do that as it allows different versions to coexist in slots. Although I am not sure how much?

I don't know about FreeBSD, but this should be possible in Gentoo: Install your base system, then mask higher versions of the packages installed, so that the base system will not be updated. Then install your application software, which can be updated at will. If there at some time will be the need to have a higher version of software in your base system you can selectively only upgrade that specific software or just decide not to do that.

Linux Mint 17 let you select what packages you want upgrade through their upgrade manager tool.
You can select to upgrade userland applications and unselect core function packages like the kernel and stuff.

Look at for a review of Linux Mint 17 on youtube, I am sure lot of reviewer will point that as a feature.

I think no linux distro forces your upgrades on you. Using apt-get or aptitude package managers you can always put any package on hold in which case it will not upgrade that package until you explicitly tell your system to do so. In any event both apt-get and aptitude will present what they are going to do and wait for permission before doing it. So your worries have no basis if I am understanding you correctly.
jdk

The problem with APT based distributions in this case is that you would need to run a fast moving distribution to fulfill the "always the latest applications" part, but sooner or later the distro maintainers will define dependencies in a way that you have to upgrade the base system also.
This can be avoided with using source based distros, where the user decides abouts dependencies and versions.

@TobiSGD I understand what your saying. I'm having trouble understanding the possible gain in not upgrading your kernel (along with the headers) if "base system" means kernel. Perhaps I was misled by the OP's first post. I got the impression he was equating an upgrade from Windows7 to Windows8 with upgrading a kernel from 3.14-4.dmz.1 to 3.14-5.dmz.1 -- something which takes me about 3 minutes on a bad day. I get the impression I'm missing something here but I can't, for the life of me, see what it is.
Again, I'm confused here. I do decide about any given version I wish to install. The package manager makes a suggestion and I'm free to accept it or reject it as I pointed out in my previous post. I can also "jump the queue" and do some apt-pinning for some packages to get an even more recent version of a given package. I did this recently with Iceweasel where Debian Testing was at 24.5 and Debian Unstable (Sid) was 29.0.1-2 and I opting for the Sid version (it seems Jessie has now caught up). Again this was not a big deal.
jdk

I'm confused, Windows updates it's core constantly just because you not going from 7 to 8 doesn't mean Windows core is not updating. If you don't want to update your kernel install linux-lts but system updates need to happen, new SW might just require and updated dependencies/libraries that you only get by updating the system this is particularly true if you want the latest SW.

To clarify: As I understand it the OP wants a stable base system, which includes kernel, GNU tools, bash, possibly the DE, all what is needed to get a working system, but not applications. This base system shall not update (unless security issues and bugfixes, I would guess, pretty much like Debian Stable). The applications themselves should update in a rolling release model.
While this is possible somewhat easily with source based distros (and the BSDs, but just a guess), no amount of pinning will make that viable in any way on APT based distributions.

1 members found this post helpful.

You got me absolutely correct. Thanks for clarifying me.

The practical problem I was facing was that in my first distro Debian Squeeze, it was very much stable system. I have never encountered any problem in it. But it contained older softwares.

The second was Arch. I am using it on new computer. In it the problem is that it upgrades entire system. Hence the changes are comparatively too much which risks system stability.

I have switched to Gentoo now. Let me find out how much I can do with it.