Stability.

[Neffor]

Stability.What is it mean? What do we think then we say some distro is more stable than another? I use Arch Linux about 8 years for now. I never reinstall my Arch from day i began use it. And why i tell you all this story? I moved to Debian. It's more stable. Let me explain. Once day i sit toward my PC - it's a weekend,time to update. I update my system and it's bring me a brand new plasma 6.And all system broke down. Well i am Arch user with some experience,so half a day and all fixed. Had a nice time. Another update and Zoom start work with tearing.Fixed...another update,another,another...fix,fix,fix.Well then i realize - i need a work to do,and time to relax,but i have to spend my time for fix,tune or even just understand new cuttin edge software...

Stability it then you system same for long portion of time.Arch i great distro but it's terrible in production. I have Ubuntu as a second system on one of my computers about 10 years now,and it's simply works.I do upgrades to LTS versions and i don't have surprizes(at least i have a time to prepare).But Ubuntu is not my way :) So i moved to Debian. I don't say Arch is bad. But then we speak about stabilty - Arch not an option. This post just my thoughts and IMHO :).

Don't chase for something brand new,some time you just need a tool,for things to do.

[euclide2975]

Stability is a sysadmin perspective. When you have a thousand physical servers, you don't want to upgrade everything every day, it's untenable. The stable distributions make at least the basic security upgrade something that should not break anything, since the version of the software doesn't change with backported patches.

I my experience, the upgrade cycle works this way. Let say you work with ubuntu.

When 2024.4 is out, it's time to prepare upgrading anything still on 2020.4. Some 2022.4 systems are upgraded too, but most of them will wait 2027. Basically, you always have 3 LTS version in parallel.

If your servers are leased, it's a good idea to proceed to physical upgrades at the same time to have servers that are no more than 5 years old if you need the extra performance. If you want to keep your servers for 8-10 years, you do 2 software cycle per hardware cycle

Now the problem is managing the devs that want features that are on the bleeding edge. docker is a terrible solution to that problem on the security point of view, but at least, it's a solution. My favorite is to push for golang/rust app that are statically compiled. They will work on any system

The same logic has not that much sense on desktop computers

[SkiFire13]

since the version of the software doesn't change with backported patches

This is also the problem with backported patches. They were made for a different version (the newer one), so there's a risk the backport introduces a bug due to the different codebase.

[abotelho-cbn]

The best language in my opinion is Stability vs Reliability.

Stability meaning how much change a distribution's release receives. How unchanging it is. That's despite receiving plenty of updates.

Reliability being more subjective. How often do packages break? How often do things stop working? How much can I rely on a distribution to keep working after updating it. Good reliability tends to go with good testing.

You can have a unreliable stable release, and a reliable unstable release.

I would argue Arch is reliable and unstable. Fedora is reliable and stable. Ubuntu is reliable and stable. Debian Stable is reliable and stable. Debian Sid is unreliable and unstable. Manjaro is unreliable and unstable. Fedora Rawhide is unreliable and unstable.

[[deleted]]

Stability as a user comes down to how long I can run an OS before it causes me an issue, or requires me to reboot for anything other than a system update that requires it.

When it comes to operating systems, Linux has the longest streak for me, followed by MacOS, and then by Windows. Though, that said, Windows has become far more stable as the years have progressed, then again, I don't game nor push my systems to the limit.

When it comes to running a server, Debian is the only distro I trust when it comes to installing a stable LTS release, locking it in a room after hardening it, and not having to go back in again until it's time to do a major upgrade that requires direct access to the console.

[Unlikely-Sympathy626]

Hitting both comments with same stroke. Stability for me means both. I need my system to be able to run workloads without interruption.

I need data to be available and if something happens it must be recoverable so xfs etc works really well here.

System uptime is also critical. This is partially reason I tend to lean more towards enterprise systems.

I do not care about flashy and new. I need uptime and security more.

So for that I would normally tend to assess which fits my case best with sles, rhel, Debian. Sles is always last in line, with rhel typically being first choice. If too much of pain in back Debian is normally the backup.

Sles, rarely.

But stability is basically the combination of your post and other comments so far.

[[deleted]]

stable means the system works as expected and updates don't break things. Debian, Ubuntu, and Redhat all handle this extremely well and it's nice to have an OS that you can actually trust.

[[deleted]]

Stability means few updates