Stable Linux distro with up to date packages
Stable Linux distro with up to date packages
Maybe what I'm looking for is the holy grail, but what do you guys suggest as a Distro with a good balance between stability and up-to-date packages?
What is your definition of stability? I have used Arch for about ten years without any major breakage, but sometimes you do have to do some manual tinkering if a package stops working. So it's stable enough for me, but maybe not for others. Since it is a rolling release, packages are generally being updated quite rapidly.
I think that any modern rolling release distro would fit the bill though.
I feel like something like Fedora fits the bill: great, reliable, well-maintained repositories, decently updated kernels, yet never faced any major issues, and access to quite updated packages. Only issue is Red Hat caused a stir recently, though I still believe Red Hat does more good than bad in the open source community.
Debian testing (more up to date than ubuntu, rolling release, much more stable than the name suggests, truly free as in freedom)
Fedora. Switched after years of Ubuntu and never looked back.
Just like the holy grail, a stable and up-to-date distro doesn't exist. Stability and recency of software typically constitute a tradeoff. Human software developers produce some number of bugs per line of code. Unless all changes made to a piece of software are bug fixes, new changes mean new bugs, almost invariably. Therefore the only way to stop the increase of bugs in a piece of software is to stop the changes to it or only do changes that address bugs. In the context of distros, a stable one is a distro where the number of bugs stays constant or decreases over time. This is how Debian, Ubuntu and every other distro that locks its software versions for a certain release work. After a release is out, only bug fix changes are permitted, with some special exceptions. The idea that there are multiple types of stability is a bit of a false narrative. Adding features, adds lines of code, which increases the number of defects. This is a fundamental fact of software engineering that's actively managed during the development cycle of most software. A collection of software like a rolling Linux distro that receives a constant stream of new features may feel bug-free to specific users, however that is typically a coincidence. Just because those X number of people didn't hit any significant defects during their usage, doesn't mean that you won't. This is true for every distro, however stable distros generally have an ever-decreasing number of bugs over their lifespan. In addition, bugs that are never fixed can be documented, workarounded and the workarounds will keep working for the lifespan of the release because there are no changes.
With all of that out of the way I hope it's clearer why there's a tradeoff between stability and recency of software in distros. There are various strategies to have a bit of both and they typically revolve around letting the bits you want be recent, while keeping everything else stable. These days the easiest and most foolproof way to get new software is via Flatpak or Snap.
You could of course abandon stability and go for recency via some rolling release distro and see if you step on any significant bugs. Maybe you won't and you'll be happy with that. Many people are.
As a personal and professional Linux user that lives with and maintains a significant number of machines, I typically go for a stable base like Debian or Ubuntu LTS and update only the software I need via Flatpak, Snap and Docker. I no longer use PPAs. This provides a great balance between stability and recency. But that's just me.
This really depends on your definition of "stability".
The technical definition is "software packages don't change very often". This is what makes Debian a "stable" distro, and Arch an "unstable" one.
The more colloquial definition of "stability" is "doesn't break very often", which is what people usually mean when they ask for "stable" distributions. The main problem with recommending a distro like this, is that it's going to depend on you as a user, and also on your hardware.
I, personally, have used Arch for about 5 years now, and it's only ever broken because I've done something stupid. I stopped doing stupid things, and Arch hasn't broken since. However, I've also spoken to a few people who have had Arch break on them, but 9 times out of 10, they point to the Nvidia driver as the culprit, so it seems you'll have a better time if you have an AMD GPU, for example.
openSUSE and Fedora
debian unstable or opensuse and flatpaks
Depending on your definitions of up to date and stable:
Any of the releases every 6 months distros are more stable and reasonably up to date - something like Fedora even keeps the kernel updated during those months
OpenSUSE Tumbleweed is rolling release with something called “openQA” that is run on the distro before releasing the snapshot to help stability. It also uses BTRFS with something called “snapper” by default, so if something breaks, you can pick the previous version from the bootloader
Permanently Deleted
Tumbleweed. And if a weekly does break something, jusr rollback.
Fedora is more up to date than Ubuntu, and quite stable. Of course, depending on the exact packages you're looking for the answer might change.
From my personal experience you would want either Fedora or Arch Linux that's not Manjaro (not b/c Manjaro unstable, but because it can become it if you use aur with their delayed package release).
I found Fedora to be my cup of tea for gaming though it is about 2 months behind arch in terms of packages.
Whereas Arch is relies more on the terminal to download, and update packages. EndeavorOS is a good distro to try for this, but it wasn't my cup of tea especially on my laptop.
Arch itself is pretty stable if you know what are you doing with basic installation.
I didn't think I would ever say this, but: arch isn't always the answer. True: the last time the entire system broke on me was in 2006'ish, but I can't count the times certain apps have stopped working or some python upgrade messes up things. Sure: that's the price of rolling release and AUR, and I wouldn't be without it, but it's a thing one has to learn to live with, and a thing that makes 'arch' the wrong answer to this particular question.
I have been using Gentoo exclusively on my desktop and ThinkPad for 7 months now and I reeeaaally like it. It's a rolling release distro but you're able to set your system to only use versions of packages marked as stable by default, then using a simple config file you can select which packages you want the newest, bleeding edge versions for. This allows you to have a customizable blend of stability and newness. With Gentoo, the package manager does have to compile your packages from source, but a lot of big packages (like Firefox or the kernel) have binary options as well, and with modern hardware most packages don't take very long to compile.
In the end you could use any distro which desktop you like (which could be Debian stable, or something immutable) and then get your applications from the latest and greatest with Distrobox
In my servers I use debian 12, but I think a good balance (stability & up to date packages) would be linux mint in my opinion.
Could always install endeavouros and or arch if you prefer more work with btrfs and snapshots. Arch is mostly stable despite the laughter erupting from this post. Even if it does fall down you have the snapshots to fallback to in order to bail you out. Arch is like riding and steering a rocket but having btrfs is like having extra lives so crashing doesn't really kill you forever. Depends on what you want.
The good news is if you try arch long enough and spend hours tinkering with cutting edge software you too can come to the point where you are exhausted and just want a machine that does what the hell you want without screwing around with it. Or you can change your avatar to some sort of anime character and bask in the superiority of not only using arch but enjoying it like some sort of digital masochist.
Permanently Deleted
Void Linux. A great compromise between being up to date and being stable AF. They're not bleeding edge, but cutting edge, most definitely. For example, they only recently transfered to kernel 6.3, while Arch had it months ago... with instability issues I might add. Void maintainers would rather let these wrinckles get ironed out than implement the latest and greatest.
It is a rolling release distro, so nothing new there. Packages get regular updates, same as any other rolling release distro, except for the kernel packages which are carefully examined before being submitted in the repo. The number of precompiled packages is not huge, but the src templates are (you just have to compile them from source with xbps-src, which is a piece of cake when you already have the template file).
The good thing is that all package templates get checked for buildability (test) on GH. If the template passes all tests, it makes it in the repo, if not, it doesn't, simple as that.
If you think you would be comfortable with Arch, you'd be comfortable with Void as well 😉.
If you like Plasma or one of the other supported desktops, I suggest trying Siduction for this.
Gentoo, obviously.
I use it since it works. But it also has up to date packages. Number of times I tried moving away from it and it is just not possible.
I use Mint on side-desktop (one with graphic card I use for gaming and deep learning) and while it is easy to use it also has old software, python is stuck on 3.7 or 3.8 so it is becoming unusable even.
Will gentoo give you some problems? Probably, but those are always solvable and you will spend less time on other stuff.
Slackware is as stable as it gets.
By definition that's impossible, stable means packages don't get updated, so their version is stable. If you meant stability outside of the Linux world, as in "doesn't break" then most rolling release would fit, personally I use Manjaro, and have used Arch and Gentoo in the past, Tumbleweed is also a good option that others have recommended.
For what purpose though? All my servers and containers run debian. Everthing I care about publishes fresh packages for it, but on their own repos. My desktop and laptop run pop_os with a few additional repos.
Everything that needs to be bleeding edge can come from snap or flatpak these days anyway.
Kubuntu (Ubuntu but KDE), both great KDE UI and stable kernel. I use Kubuntu LTS.
My choices would be :- Fedora Debian testing Void linux
VanillaOS is pretty much what you're asking for. The only real downside right now is that Orchid probably won't have KDE support out of the gate
Funtoo is a bit of both. It's not as current as Gentoo but the tradeoff is not having to rebuild the toolchain every few weeks.
Guix is a source based (rolling release) distro. Any package operation you do like like installing, updating, or removing, can be rolled back. So if an update ever breaks anything you can just roll-back and wait for the fix. You can even pin that specific package and continue to upgrade the rest of your system. And every state is saved in a generation, so you can go to any state your system has ever been in package/configuration wise.
Nix has all of these advantages as well.
Devuan testing branch.
I recommend using Manjaro KDE.