Looking for a distro with a solid stable base system and rolling application software
 

Hi there,

I'm looking for a Linux distribution that has a solid stable base system (kernel, standard base libraries and utils and also DE) and rolling/latest application and development software (Firefox, LibreOffice, JDK, Python, Go, Git, docker, k8s, etc.). All distros that I know are either the whole stable and not latest or the whole rolling/latest and less stable. I need a hybrid. Please advise.

The nearest thing to what you want, I think, are immutable distros:

https://itsfoss.com/immutable-linux-distros/

Maybe I didn't explain my question well enough. It's not about mutability of the base system but about how package maintainers do their job. Packages of the base system need to be solid stable and receive only minor updates related to stability and security, i.e. no new functionality until the next major release of the whole distro. In contrast all other packaged software is latest, released with a minimum delay after the upstream, i.g. it's rolling.

I don't think you'll find any like that. No such thing as the perfect distro, just try a few 'til you find the one that suits you best.

The closest you can get to that is probably Debian with Flatpaks (what I do) / Snaps / AppImages. If you can't stomach those type of packages then you can create a distro to be like you want but it's a huge job and not worth the effort imho

You might want to give MaboxLinux a look. Based on Manjaro and Arch with LTS kernels available but is a rolling distro. WM is openbox but I am pretty sure you could install your preference of DE that you would like. I have it multibooted on all of the laptops I use and is one of my goto distros that I use regularly.

https://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=mabox

https://maboxlinux.org/

You might want to take a look at Debian Sid.

I have found Debian "Unstable" to be as stable, sometimes more stable, than many distros' stable.

I'm very sorry to hear this.
That means that Linux still isn't ready for desktop/workstation usage.
There is no way out of Windows.

Linux on desktops/workstations is very fragmented and made without any good prospect.
This is why most software engineers use or like to use macOS and not Linux.
Even the similarly looking GNOME doesn't help and just sucks.

I need a solid stable base system, preferable with the Cinnamon DE
And I need the latest other software.
I think most people who need computer for work and not for masturbation on a particular distribution of Penguin need the same system and the same application software repository.

Decades are passed and Linux still sucks on personal computers and I continue using Windows.
WTF?

That's not true. It's quite capable. The problem is who decides which packages stay static and stable and which get updated. Since no one can agree on that choice it's quite impossible to have a single distro like you describe. It's not a matter of Linux being capable. It's a matter of everyone having an opinion on what is necessary. The only thing Linux really gives you is the choice to do what you want. With Win / Mac you get what they give you and that is the end of it.

You are right that there is no way out of Windows for some people. Flatpaks / Snaps / AppImages are the answer to what you are requesting but they are controversial because one loses much of the power of a *nix system when you use them.

What you ask for is simply not possible in an open development environment. It's like getting a group of 10 people to agree on pizza toppings. Have fun with that. To my mind this is the only weakness in the *nix ecosystem. The raw freedom causes much conflict and many just don't get what they want, or think it can't exist unless they do it themselves.

This is not true. Take a look at any enterprise Linux distro, like RHEL for example. If you take only the base system of it (kernel, system libraries, system utils and DE) it will be solid stable like I need. Then take all other packages from Fedora Rawhide and adopt/build them for that RHEL base system. This is what I want, but preferable with Cinnamon DE.

Flatpaks / Snaps / AppImages is a completely wrong way. Flatpaks / Snaps / AppImages must die and be forgotten.

No. What I ask is simple and possible. Package maintainers just don't get it because of wrong concepts they have in their minds. They actually is the main cause of the Linux fragmentation and the lack of Linux popularity on personal computers.

Shared libraries are a hallmark of *nix systems. You can't compile new software against old libraries in many cases. They don't have the features most likely that new software relies on. Unless you plan to update those as well in which case you lose your stable base. You could also adjust the code in the new programs to potentially work with the old libraries. But that is just way out of the realm of reality for anyone. If you are talking about having an entire separate library structure for the new stuff then that is possible but doubles your used space for libraries. So yes. It is quite impossible if you want it to be a normal distribution. Otherwise you should stay with Windows because that is the only option that works like that.

Linux is not for you. That much is clear. But it's quite capable for a huge number of people. Just because it's not good for you doesn't mean that it is the problem. It just doesn't, and really can't quite do what you are suggesting. That is an intentional design choice.

*EDIT*

A further thought.

I think it's safe to say that you are not the first person to want something like this. I can all but guarantee it. The reason it doesn't exist is because it would require an entirely new approach and design for the distro. They generally follow standards. You would have to dump the standards to accomplish what you want. I'm not knocking the idea, I rather like it. I just think you don't realize how difficult this would be to do under the current standards that Linux distros tend to follow. There is a reason what you want likely doesn't exist thus far.

If you can get past the myriad of hurdles that this would bring, which I'm sure are all solvable then you would potentially have a golden distro on your hands. You would need a way to keep current and stable libraries without them conflicting. You would likely need an entirely new package manager to deal with multiple locations of said libraries. You would have to redefine the FHS (file system hierarchy standard) for this distro.

Sorry to hear you can't escape from the Windows jail. I broke out from it just before XP reached its final EOL. I've had a brief look at 7 and 10,
but found them not very interesting. Good luck with 11, 12, etc.

We are not discussing antique Linux distributions like Red Hat 5.0 Hurricane from December 1997. Regarding today's solid stable Linux distributions like RHEL 9.3 your statement is generally not true.

It sounds like you've never tried to build applications from the original source code by yourself. Because otherwise you would know about the build process and things like GNU Autotools or CMake. When you build an application software the build process is starting by running one of those tools. This step generates the actual Makefile files with appropriate definitions of CFLAGS and even some source code according to your system and installed libraries. An application software usually don't need the latest versions of libraries and definitely can be built and run on systems with older but not antique libraries.


You are wrong again. I had used several Linux distros for my daily work in a past and I was always wondering why it's made so wrongly. And this is not only mine opinion but also an opinion of the majority of personal computer users, even of the professional subset, i.e. of people using personal computers mostly for work and less for fun. They just don't use any Linux on their desktops/workstations. Linux usage on desktops/workstations is between 2% - 4% only, worldwide.

The main reason that it doesn't exist is the primary interest of corporations in server/cloud usage of Linux and not or much less in desktop/workstation usage. There is no need in entirely new package manager but in different way the maintainers of application packages do their work. For example there is no technical limitation or any issue that prevents making a new package of Git version 2.44.0 (latest now) for CentOS Stream 9 or for RHEL 9.3, but they just didn't make it. Why? Because of their policy.

Then I wish you the best. Clearly you know far more than anyone here.

Make your own then. I'll try it when you have.