Skip to main content

Purism on Rolling Releases

Gosh, this somehow enrages me:

[Rolling Releases] are bad for stability, because the changes they bring are often not yet widely used, or tested, in real world situations.
This is utter bullshit. If your rolling release distribution is unstable you're bad at building a distro (which includes testing, duh!). Blaming it on the release model is mainly just FUD.

Maybe they should have not semi-forked and rebranded Debian for their own sales purposes.

#Purism #PureOS

2 people reshared this

oder man hat vergessen, das man das Entwicklungs-/Testing-Repository nutzt 😉

debian is imho not the ideal base for a rolling distro. every attempt that i know has failed on the long run. So I guess they are just rebasing on Buster as it includes most of the stuff they need.

Concerning the reason for the fork is mainly de-blobbing. PureOS is a FSF adorsed distro.

Debian based rolling Distros:
- Siduction
- SolyXK
- Linux Mint Debian Edition
- Kali Linux
- antiX
- Sparky Linux

But it's not the point if Debian as a good base. There are lots of rolling distros out there being rock solid, openSUSE Tumbleweed to name one.

With the de-blobbing issue your right, of course.

Yes, there are some enthusiastic projects which still try to build a rolling distro based on debian. Concerning the ones you mentioned:

- Siduction : based on sid, facing the issues that a sid system has (broken deps etc)
- SolydXK : only in the Enthusiast’s Editions (based on testing)
- LMDE : semi rolling based on stretch
- Kali : in don't know
- antiX : stable
- Sparky: semi rolling

So besides Siduction there is no real Debian based rolling distro I know.

It is a common misunderstanding, that a rolling release distribution has to offer the "hottest shit". Rolling release means to offer updates continously, maybe even months after a release of a specific version, which gives a lot time for testing.