LinuxQuestions.org
Visit Jeremy's Blog.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions
User Name
Password
Linux - Distributions This forum is for Distribution specific questions.
Red Hat, Slackware, Debian, Novell, LFS, Mandriva, Ubuntu, Fedora - the list goes on and on... Note: An (*) indicates there is no official participation from that distribution here at LQ.

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 06-09-2024, 06:24 AM   #1
linuxuser371038
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2024
Posts: 250

Rep: Reputation: 7
Is there a very barebones/modular distro with great community with very long/slow update cycles?


I originally jumped into using linux around 8 years ago and chose arch for the main reason I had read that it was a very light, modular distro.

I love it for that reason and the great and super knowledgeable community but what really bugs me is the super fast update cycle and the forced full upgrades.

I have tried to avoid upgrading, sometimes leaving it for maybe a year or more, but usually sooner rather than later you want to install a new package and it won't work because of conflicts/dependency issues because 'partial updates are not supported'. This is usually the reason that forces me to do a full upgrade.

On the other hand if updating more regularly you still end up with a broken system to a greater or lesser degree often due to bleeding edge new packages and compatibility issues with others that have not implemented the new changes.

I am very much of the "if it ain't broke don't fix it camp" so arch is the worst distro for my preferences in that sense. On the other hand it suits me for being very modular and lack of bloat unlike ones like ubuntu.

I have not looked into others much over the years so really don't know if there would be better alternatives for my use case which would give the modularity but with glacial updates.

I know debian is more like that in regards to the release cycle but is it as stripped down as arch if you want it to be? I know at one point I was considering it for the same reasons but at the time I was doing a lot of coding which required a few cutting edge packages. At that time arch made more sense after consideration because 99% of things are already in the pacman and what isn't there will be an aur for it. Debian on the other hand I found myself having to scour obscure repos or even build from source.

So the newness factor of arch was in my favor at that stage but now I no longer have those requirements as that work is long completed so maybe debian would be a better fit for me now.

I have used it a bit on remote servers when arch was not an option to install out the box and found it pretty good in that regard.

Any others that might suit better?

It must also have a strong community to help with issues which arch has been great for even if they are often grumpy and do not suffer fools gladly . I imagine the average archer to be like real life versions of Gilfoyle.
 
Old 06-09-2024, 10:20 AM   #2
fatmac
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Sep 2011
Location: Upper Hale, Surrey/Hants Border, UK
Distribution: One main distro, & some smaller ones casually.
Posts: 5,774

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
MX Linux, AntiX, or Devuan probably, possibly Slackware, depends on the programs that you need, otherwise install a command line system first, then add whatever you need on top.

For a lesser size install, maybe try Fatdog64 ( Slackware based) frugal install, or Tiny Core/Core Plus.

Last edited by fatmac; 06-09-2024 at 10:22 AM.
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-09-2024, 10:44 AM   #3
boughtonp
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 3,865

Rep: Reputation: 2722Reputation: 2722Reputation: 2722Reputation: 2722Reputation: 2722Reputation: 2722Reputation: 2722Reputation: 2722Reputation: 2722Reputation: 2722Reputation: 2722

So in summary, you'd like Arch but without the forced rolling aspect?

Based on //wiki.archlinux.org/title/Arch_compared_to_other_distributions maybe worth investigating are:

* CRUX
* Debian (or Devuan which reduces systemd bloat)
* Slackware

Since you've already tried Debian, trying Slackware would be the next logical choice.

Based on //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Linux_distributions#Package_management_and_installation Slackware has significantly fewer packages than Arch, but if it has the ones you need then the number of ones it has that you don't need is less important.

 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-09-2024, 11:13 AM   #4
Keith Hedger
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2010
Location: Wiltshire, UK
Distribution: Void, Linux From Scratch, Slackware64
Posts: 3,207

Rep: Reputation: 868Reputation: 868Reputation: 868Reputation: 868Reputation: 868Reputation: 868Reputation: 868
void doesn't install huge amounts at first, you decide what to add, also updates are done manually.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-09-2024, 12:28 PM   #5
linuxuser371038
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2024
Posts: 250

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatmac View Post
MX Linux, AntiX, or Devuan probably, possibly Slackware, depends on the programs that you need, otherwise install a command line system first, then add whatever you need on top.

For a lesser size install, maybe try Fatdog64 ( Slackware based) frugal install, or Tiny Core/Core Plus.
Oh indeed now you mention it I have had a few litte dalliances with micro linux distros in puppylinux mostly, on vm from what I recall. Just wanted for basic playback within a vm for downloaded files I may not have trusted to run on main machine. Did not test out the features for that use case.
 
Old 06-09-2024, 12:34 PM   #6
linuxuser371038
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2024
Posts: 250

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by boughtonp View Post
So in summary, you'd like Arch but without the forced rolling aspect?

Based on //wiki.archlinux.org/title/Arch_compared_to_other_distributions maybe worth investigating are:

* CRUX
* Debian (or Devuan which reduces systemd bloat)
* Slackware

Since you've already tried Debian, trying Slackware would be the next logical choice.

Based on //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Linux_distributions#Package_management_and_installation Slackware has significantly fewer packages than Arch, but if it has the ones you need then the number of ones it has that you don't need is less important.

Yes, reading into it a bit more I am seeing slackware come up quite a bit. Looks interesting and a great learning experience it seems to learn more about the inner workings of linux in general.

On the other hand, rather than looking for other archalikes, another suggestion has been to simply update actual arch, despite the warnings, with a couple of caveats of being selective about things you freeze vs update to avoid dependency issues.

On an older post on the same topic someone mentioned that simply doing the above is no different than just using a none rolling release distro except you decide the update cycle. Would that be a fair appraisal? If so rolling vs not is effectively a moot point no?

Slack does still interest me as a try it and see thing. Maybe I will play around with it in a vm.
 
Old 06-09-2024, 12:39 PM   #7
linuxuser371038
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2024
Posts: 250

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith Hedger View Post
void doesn't install huge amounts at first, you decide what to add, also updates are done manually.
Yes I came across void as an even more minimal version of arch. Tbh I don't really see the base install of arch as being too heavy as it is. The base package system is rather small and no display/window manager by default. Can't imagine what else would be stripped back in that sense? Maybe no systemd? I started when systemd was already standard in arch and never had problems with it so do not relate to all the hate it gets.

What do you mean by updates are done manually? They are manual on arch too, just that full updates are heavily encouraged any time you install any new package.

As I stated in post above I was thinking there seems perhaps little to gain from choosing another flavor of arch vs. just perhaps being a little more discerning about my periodic updates I already do on arch. Since I already know arch it probably makes more sense to do the latter. Could probably tailor my updates to avoid most of the dependency issues with a little research although I imagine it will get resistance from a lot of the arch community if asking for help with it since it is 'not supported'. Might be better to ask on these forums for that rather than the pure arch ones .

Last edited by linuxuser371038; 06-09-2024 at 12:43 PM.
 
Old 06-09-2024, 01:56 PM   #8
boughtonp
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 3,865

Rep: Reputation: 2722Reputation: 2722Reputation: 2722Reputation: 2722Reputation: 2722Reputation: 2722Reputation: 2722Reputation: 2722Reputation: 2722Reputation: 2722Reputation: 2722

I haven't used Arch in many years, but when I did, I tried to only update occasionally but constantly encountered problems with that.

Arch simply isn't built to work that way. Trying to pretend it is will cause unnecessary frustration.

I suspect distros like Void or Slackware Current are more forgiving in that regard, but I've not used either of them so can't confirm.

The official Slackware forum is on LQ, so if you ask a specific question about infrequently updating Slackware Current (rolling) in there, you'll probably either get confirmation that it's ok, or a suggestion to stick with non-rolling Slackware 15.

 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-09-2024, 02:18 PM   #9
Keith Hedger
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2010
Location: Wiltshire, UK
Distribution: Void, Linux From Scratch, Slackware64
Posts: 3,207

Rep: Reputation: 868Reputation: 868Reputation: 868Reputation: 868Reputation: 868Reputation: 868Reputation: 868
I mean u choose to do an update, you dont get hassled to do it like debian constantly nagging to install updates.

Also void uses runnit as the init system by default so a bonus for systemd haters!
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-09-2024, 05:20 PM   #10
teckk
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2004
Distribution: Arch
Posts: 5,361
Blog Entries: 7

Rep: Reputation: 1936Reputation: 1936Reputation: 1936Reputation: 1936Reputation: 1936Reputation: 1936Reputation: 1936Reputation: 1936Reputation: 1936Reputation: 1936Reputation: 1936
You can install software on arch if you haven't updated for months. Use the arch archive. Put in the date of your last update. Everything matching.

Example:

/etc/pacman.conf
Code:
[core]
#Include = /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist
Server=https://archive.archlinux.org/repos/2024/3/13/core/os/x86_64/

[extra]
#Include = /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist
Server=https://archive.archlinux.org/repos/2024/3/13/extra/os/x86_64/
I've never tried to go much more than 3 months. If you want to do that, then you don't want a rolling release.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-10-2024, 12:57 AM   #11
linuxuser371038
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2024
Posts: 250

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by boughtonp View Post
I haven't used Arch in many years, but when I did, I tried to only update occasionally but constantly encountered problems with that.

Arch simply isn't built to work that way. Trying to pretend it is will cause unnecessary frustration.

I suspect distros like Void or Slackware Current are more forgiving in that regard, but I've not used either of them so can't confirm.

The official Slackware forum is on LQ, so if you ask a specific question about infrequently updating Slackware Current (rolling) in there, you'll probably either get confirmation that it's ok, or a suggestion to stick with non-rolling Slackware 15.

Why would I choose the rolling release of slackware when that is what I am trying to get away from?
 
Old 06-10-2024, 01:05 AM   #12
linuxuser371038
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2024
Posts: 250

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckk View Post
You can install software on arch if you haven't updated for months. Use the arch archive. Put in the date of your last update. Everything matching.

Example:

/etc/pacman.conf
Code:
[core]
#Include = /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist
Server=https://archive.archlinux.org/repos/2024/3/13/core/os/x86_64/

[extra]
#Include = /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist
Server=https://archive.archlinux.org/repos/2024/3/13/extra/os/x86_64/
I've never tried to go much more than 3 months. If you want to do that, then you don't want a rolling release.
Well that is about my current way already without doing anything different to freeze packages and such. That is usually the average time before dependency issues begin to crop up.

I am wondering, what is the difference between a non rolling release where they decide when to update packages and a rolling release where you simply decide not to update until you feel like it? Does the former allow for less package dependency breakage.

Maybe taken from the other angle I would ask - if I didn't want to update any of the existing packages that worked perfectly well which distro would be best for that?

I don't like the idea of having to upgrade every package in your whole machine when you just want to install 1 new package. I couldn't care less about 'new bells and whistles' of newer packages. My only impetus for upgrading is that it is usually mandatory, with arch at least, due to dependency issues and lib file issues. Do the non rolling release distros work differently in terms of not breaking libraries? If so how? I recall things like glibc or other libraries I have never heard of until they break being at issue with arch forcing full system upgrade. How would a slower release cycle prevent that?
 
Old 06-10-2024, 02:48 PM   #13
linuxuser371038
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2024
Posts: 250

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by boughtonp View Post
So in summary, you'd like Arch but without the forced rolling aspect?

Based on //wiki.archlinux.org/title/Arch_compared_to_other_distributions maybe worth investigating are:

* CRUX
* Debian (or Devuan which reduces systemd bloat)
* Slackware

Since you've already tried Debian, trying Slackware would be the next logical choice.

Based on //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Linux_distributions#Package_management_and_installation Slackware has significantly fewer packages than Arch, but if it has the ones you need then the number of ones it has that you don't need is less important.

You did me bad with the slackware recommendation. From my thread I made on that sub it is sounding very blaoted!

CRUX looking good for lightweightness but just read it is rolling release type. Hmm haven't found one ticking both boxes yet...

Maybe devuan?

Hmm just reading this I see perhaps systemd is one that is against my KISS philosophy I would enjoy looking for alternatives to.

Last edited by linuxuser371038; 06-10-2024 at 03:10 PM.
 
Old 06-11-2024, 04:59 AM   #14
fatmac
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Sep 2011
Location: Upper Hale, Surrey/Hants Border, UK
Distribution: One main distro, & some smaller ones casually.
Posts: 5,774

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by linuxuser371038 View Post
Oh indeed now you mention it I have had a few litte dalliances with micro linux distros in puppylinux mostly, on vm from what I recall. Just wanted for basic playback within a vm for downloaded files I may not have trusted to run on main machine. Did not test out the features for that use case.
If it is just for video/audio files, maybe you want LibreELEC, OpenELEC or OSMC - https://www.tecmint.com/linux-media-center-distros/
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-11-2024, 05:18 AM   #15
hazel
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Mar 2016
Location: Harrow, UK
Distribution: LFS, AntiX, Slackware
Posts: 8,136
Blog Entries: 20

Rep: Reputation: 4733Reputation: 4733Reputation: 4733Reputation: 4733Reputation: 4733Reputation: 4733Reputation: 4733Reputation: 4733Reputation: 4733Reputation: 4733Reputation: 4733
Quote:
Originally Posted by linuxuser371038 View Post
CRUX looking good for lightweightness but just read it is rolling release type. Hmm haven't found one ticking both boxes yet...
I used to use Crux and it wasn't rolling release in those days. It may have changed its policy of course. In Crux as in Gentoo (which is rolling release and always has been), packages are built locally from downloaded source code. It certainly wasn't bleeding edge when I used it; the idea was to use the latest software that was known to be stable. It ran very fast and that, together with internal simplicity, was its usp.
Quote:
Maybe devuan?
That's basically Debian without systemd. Same packaging system.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Aboout "with very long lines",how long is very long? yun1st Linux - Newbie 4 07-20-2012 04:38 PM
long long long: Too long for GCC Kenny_Strawn Programming 5 09-18-2010 02:14 AM
Life cycles - how long is yours? ButterflyMelissa Linux - Desktop 26 09-03-2010 10:00 AM
Great place, great people, and me feel great to be here rajshekarj LinuxQuestions.org Member Intro 2 10-22-2009 04:34 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:34 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration