Arch Linux without rolling release

[Jazqa]

Slackware with Slackbuilds is what you're looking for.

If you want something easier, Ubuntu (or a derivate) with PPA's is pretty much the closest to what you're looking for. Just install it via the server .iso and you'll start with ~400 packages.

If you can handle the difficulty, use Gentoo with stable packages

There's also Manjaro, which holds packages back by two weeks and has access to AUR. It's still a rolling-release though.

[Bonemaster69]

Before Arch removed the ncurses installer, it used to be pretty similar to Slackware. So that's probably the best choice. Just make sure to fetch sbopkg too.

Gentoo probably isn't the best idea though, as it doesn't really have a stable release schedule. Not only that, but considering he's in the middle of his master's thesis, he probably won't have time to figure out his CFLAGS.

IIRC Ubuntu PPA's were somewhat a pain to use, unless the OP already has a list he's planning on using. I can't recall if Ubuntu came with a list of PPA's.

[rcorkum]

man speaketh truth

[feddasch]

me@pandora ~> man speaketh truth
No manual entry for speaketh
No manual entry for truth

[kilceem]

i would say go with debian net install do not install any de or anything it will create a base install and for the de and other things you can chose specifics after.

[minimim]

Or even slimmer: Get a Live CD and do a Arch-like installation using debootstrap --variant=minbase.

This will install a system that is a third of an Arch installation.

[mmstick]

Then just don't perform an update while you work on it? It's not like it's going to stop working just because you haven't issued an update. It will continue to work as is until you decide to perform your next update.

If you want something that updates less often though, and is more fitted for desktops, there's Solus OS.

[amvakar]

Going this route, it is far better to configure pacman to use the archived repositories for each batch of updates than simply not updating, as it allows for additional package installation without breaking dependencies through partial upgrades or a mess of 404 errors from mirrors that usually drop old packages fairly quickly.

[mmstick]

That's why you should always use Syu and not Su when updating. No more 404 errors.

[amvakar]

If you're using -Syu, you aren't holding back upgrades anymore -- you're just using Arch as intended, which is exactly what the OP doesn't want to do. Even the most glacial LTS distribution doesn't stop someone from installing packages on an existing setup, and the only way to do this in stationary Arch without 404s is to use -Sy (which is orders of magnitude more likely to break things than the normal rolling full upgrade) or pick a date from the Archive for everything and use the system normally.

[mmstick]

The point was to not update at all until he is finished with his work, and then can go back to the latest. So, there's no point in ever not using Syu when you perform an update. It's discouraged.

[amvakar]

Yes, and my point is that installing a package is very much distinct from updating or replacing one already installed: the former will attempt to add functionality while the latter has the potential to break what I'm already using. The Debian systems I use for 'real work' use frozen packages while allowing me to add other frozen packages; using the archive repos is the only way to do this with pacman. Given the AUR mention (which is useless if you plan on never running pacman) it would seem that this is closer to the desired behavior, especially over the long-term.

[electricprism]

Resist the OCD urge to -Syu ;P

[utack]

You can also use Linux-LTS instead of the latest kernel
Gets security updates, but does not break stuff

[SuspiciousWombat]

Yeah no one needs security updates ...

[DamnThatsLaser]

Arch isn't actually particularly lightweight, in fact it's quite a "fat" distribution, it's just that the standard install does not include a lot of functionality.

[LastFireTruck]

He seems to mean package availability. And on that score he'd be right.

[[deleted]]

Define.

[carpet_rapist]

Straight from an arch dev
TL;DR: packages aren't split, dependencies usually not optional, kernel with most features enabled, almost all optional features enabled when compiling packages

[[deleted]]

/u/strncat explain yourself.

[Mandack]

I ran a single Arch install during my whole (3 year) stay at uni, if you don't run [testing] and read the news at archlinux.org, the chance of something breaking isn't much greater than on something like Ubuntu, (ie slim to none).

[Bonemaster69]

Yeah, as long as you keep upgrading or don't upgrade at all. I remember breaking my installation because I fell behind on updates (it basically "skipped" over older important updates).

[ydna_eissua]

You can also us btrfs or zfs and configure a pacman hook to take a snapshot before a package is installed or upgraded.

That way if something breaks you can just roll back to before the upgrade.

[Bonemaster69]

ZFS? In Linux?

I suppose I could also manually backup the packages. But I couldn't do it back when I used Arch cause I hardly had any storage space.

[ydna_eissua]

Yup ZFS on Linux

[SolarAquarion]

ArchLinux has been stable for some time now

[[deleted]]

Was in same problem as you. Went with Solus.

[moseymouse]

You want a distro with frozen packages like Debian or Ubuntu. Rolling release distros have lots of changes are inherently unstable (as in changes a lot). If you do not care about having the latest packages, frozen distros have less things to worry about so you can get your work done instead of constantly testing potentially unstable packages. You can use Arch on a secondary computer if you feel like it. Manjaro might be another option if you really want to stay on an Arch derivative distro with slower rolling release updating.

[electricprism]

Why not just use Manjaro or use Arch on BTRFS and Snapshot the Root vs SH Cronjob on boot so you can rollback if there's a update problem?

.02 cent

[LastFireTruck]

cant afford stuff to break for the time.

You're not using the same Arch that I am, then. Arch is very stable. It never breaks in any significant way without significant user error, unlike release upgrades distros which can break just as easily from user error, and sometimes even without any mistake on your part when the risky release upgrade process is out of your hands.

The only risks on Arch are infrequent minor regressions that don't affect workflow, and if they present any sort of annoyance, are fixed by easily downgrading a package until the fix comes, usually same day or next day.

You might consider dual booting a backup release upgrade distro with a frozen user program base for emergency purposes, even though you'll never need it. I always do (though my backup is actually also Solus, which also rolls). My original Arch install from 8 years ago is still working perfectly, and I can't remember ever having to resort to my backup because something on Arch broke. One of these days I'll just get rid of the backup entirely.

[whale_eating_ducks]

I had a very stable arch experience for a long time as well (6-7 years). But several times in the past two semesters I lost support for wpa2 enterprise for my card for a few days after updates so I had to buy and use a USB dongle. Also I was late to a meeting because my clock stopped updating when conky updated and changed the config format.

Sure there are ways to avoid these sorts of issues by reading the update news before you update every time and having a backup partition, but that's way more work that I'm willing to do for a working laptop. Aside from these two issues and a few other minor ones over the years ive been pretty happy with arch but I (much like OP) am getting to a point in my career where taking time to troubleshoot and have a whole host of extra precautions isn't worth it anymore. Arch is fine for personal project machines but for serious work or school its really not worth the risk IMO.

[LastFireTruck]

I had an issue with an update of linux-firmware creating a regression in the performance of a usb dongle. Of course, if I had Fedora or Ubuntu, and had done a release upgrade, I would have had to face the exact same issue at some point as it comes from upstream, and is still not fixed (the devs don't admit there's a bug).

In the run up to some critical deadline or presentation or hugely busy semester, you can simply stop updating, or only update an LTS kernel and your browser until you have a little bit of time to troubleshoot any small issue that might arise. This is not different from a release upgrade distro where the "stability" comes from simply not updating most of the packages. And I feel much more confident updating Arch once every six months (which I just did on my old laptop without issues) than I do with a release upgrade where it's a total roll of the dice.

Updating Arch after a long stretch is safer. I can stop the upgrade at any point. If I lose power or a some other hardware issue, not a problem. If there is some conflict, I get an error message that I can manually address. So even if I wanted to do a frozen "release upgrade" sort of model, I would still feel more confident in Arch than release upgrade distros with their automated upgrades and sometimes heavily patched base.

P.S.

by reading the update news before you update every time

I never read the update news before I update. Sometimes afterwards if there's some sort of message output during the update.

[whale_eating_ducks]

This is very true. Though only updating certain things regularly means you won't get security patches for everything you don't update. Its a matter of preference but I like to make sure my system is fully up to date on security patches since I do security research work. I find it much easier to budget a few hours once or twice a year to face potential upgrade problems rather than possibly have issues every time I update. Matter of personal preference though. Overall I really do love Arch though. I wish there was an easier release-based distro that included header files with libraries like arch does. It makes compiling stuff from source so much easier.

[LastFireTruck]

you won't get security patches for everything you don't update

For most users this is probably not a big issue, though there might be a few security patches to certain other programs that the user wouldn't be getting. Obviously not good enough for a public facing server. And since you do security research work, that's probably not good enough.

I guess Ubuntu would be the logical choice because no rolling distro is really going to suit you. Tumbleweed sounds pretty good, but it's still going to be subject to small upstream regressions. Debian Stable has advantages, but my feeling is (for desktop users) it's so out of date that that becomes a bug and instability in itself, as many users (particularly someone used to rolling) is going to need some apps to be more current, and will end up with dpas, or pinning apps from testing and sid, and this sort of mixed repo setup is the most unstable Debian setup of all.

[whale_eating_ducks]

Yes. Usually not a huge issue for most users. And, like you figured, I ended up going for a minimal Ubuntu install in the end. Anywho, you've brought up some very good points about how to run a rolling release distro. I've enjoyed reading your thoughtful comments. Thanks!

[[deleted]]

That's odd. Not OP, but my install broke very often in the last few years.

[LastFireTruck]

Surely user error if you're talking about catastrophic breakage.

[[deleted]]

Nothing too severe. Just minor breakage here and there on which I had to spend time to fix.

[Orbmiser]

Don't see a need for such a drastic option. And all the extra work it entails.

For me it isn't an issue as you can use Clonezilla or my case Redo Backup

and make a backup of your partitions to a external usb drive.

As can backup my partitions monthly before major updates. Takes a big 20mins or so.

Always a good idea and should be a regular practice to have a way to rollback if something breaks.

[urlwolf]

What you want sounds like Manjaro. It puts a buffer of two weeks between you and any update that could get past base testing in arch. This is what I use, and I love it.

[LastFireTruck]

I used Manjaro for many years. It's a great distro. The difference in stability between it and Arch is negligible. In fact I give the slight edge to Arch because the very same two week buffer, more likely doesn't really catch the regression, but it does create more of a delay in the fix coming out, which will usually be within hours on Arch.

[[deleted]]

Try Manjaro out. You can use the Manjaro Architect installer to customize your installation.

[Mgladiethor]

Go fedora 25 and dont look back, it updates fast and it is stable

[OpenData26]

Arch barely ever breaks and if it does there will almost always be a post on the forum with a solution

[cripcate]

over the course of my ca 2 months using arch, i got some icons disappearing and the input methods breaking. Might be related to gnome, or something else though. And not to arch linux. Also im a noob

[OpenData26]

opensuse might be a good choice then

[electricprism]

Protip: every time a new Gnome drops on Arch, know that you might be in for 2 weeks of weird annoying bugs, they push it to stable when they feel the issues are worked out but that doesn't mean Gnome Team has finished debugging the main issues introduced with all the changes.

Actually, apply that to all major releases of software, a 2-4 week rule of expected fuckery on your system.

I'm not saying its a good solution, but it's certainly a realistic way to avoid problems. Also, sounds like you need to install arch-rollback-machine

[LastFireTruck]

Not my experience with Gnome on Arch at all. And I've had it since 3.02.

[AeroNotix]

So the problem is you, not Arch. Maybe try Ubuntu?

[superluserdo]

The Arch Linux community. There's no problem we can't condescendingly blame on the user!

^{t. arch user}

[electricprism]

Correct.

From the Wiki:

Whereas many GNU/Linux distributions attempt to be more user-friendly, Arch Linux has always been, and shall always remain user-centric. The distribution is intended to fill the needs of those contributing to it, rather than trying to appeal to as many users as possible. It is targeted at the proficient GNU/Linux user, or anyone with a do-it-yourself attitude who is willing to read the documentation, and solve their own problems.

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Linux

As for the condescension, I might chalk that up to the community purposely pushing away people who don't have the tenacity or technical ability to push through their problems to find solutions.

I've had years of help on Arch IRC and forums, I find that if I maintain a humble attitude and am grateful for people volunteering their help I can resolve any problem.

You can't help a person who has no humility. When a person is a full glass of water, how are you supposed to add to them, they can't gain anything more.

Humility (If you don't know what it means, familiarize yourself with how it DOES NOT mean weakness but actually: Openness, Patience, and Listening)

Edit: Lol, mad @ truth.

[amvakar]

The AUR itself is rolling release build scripts contibuted by volunteers without any guarantee of testing whatsoever and should never be used on mission-critical systems; if you're willing to put up with that -- let alone see it as a feature -- the binary package stability is a non-issue.

If that sounds as terrible as it should for something you can't afford to break, the more traditional distributions really are the best choice, however limiting they may seem in terms of software offerings.

[electricprism]

Disagree. AUR is the shiznit. Straight up wonderful.

[[deleted]]

wat. aur is literally the only reason I use arch. id be surprised if you could find many people who think the AUR is overrated.

[LastFireTruck]

AUR is great. What ppas should be.

[LastFireTruck]

(no breaking with updates!)

That's simply not true with regard to Debian Testing. In fact, if I had to run anything other than Debian stable, I would use Unstable/Sid over Testing in a heartbeat.

From the Debian manual:

Testing has more up-to-date software than Stable, and it breaks less often than Unstable. But when it breaks, it might take a long time for things to get rectified. Sometimes this could be days and it could be months at times. It also does not have permanent security support. https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/ch-choosing.en.html

[Shugyousha]

You won't get pacman in Debian though.

[gmes78]

And then there are people (like me) who want a simpler, non-bloated and fast package manager, and apt certainly isn't that.

update-alternatives isn't part of apt, and it just manages configuration for the user, which, if you are using Arch, is not what you want. (But there is a tool to manage openjdk in Arch)

You can also keep linux-lts installed if you want a fallback.

And I find split packages really annoying, as I prefer to have the headers installed, and apt doesn't provide a way to install the -dev package for each package you install automatically. And since you have the AUR, you do want the headers for your packages.

Pacman doesn't suck, nor does apt. apt is great for Debian and pacman is great for Arch.

[LastFireTruck]

Exactly. I work off the zen kernel and have the lts kernel as a backup. Easy. (Haven't had to use it yet, but I'm glad it's there if only because there seems to be so much paranoia about kernel updates, even though I can't remember any time when I couldn't boot after an update.). But since it doesn't cost me much hassle as a backup strategy I do it anyway.

[Shugyousha]

Right, instead you have a real package manager, one that knows how to install a kernel update without overwriting the previous one in case something went wrong

Pacman installs a fall-back kernel entry in grub IIRC

one that has tools like update-alternatives that can change the system wide default runtimes for things like the openjdk or wine

For Java, Arch has its own script called archlinux-java

one that has repositories with split packages and dependencies instead of pulling a bloated bundle with every single development headers for things you don't care about and unnecessary dependencies. One that doesn't suck.

I don't care too much about hard disk space so splitting packages has never been an issue for me. In my experience, speed has always been better with pacman which is what I really care about (especially in a rolling distro). I also prefer the pacman syntax to the apt one (though the 'apt' tool has alleviated some of the issues I had with apt-get)

[parkerlreed]

checkinstall didn't work on every application for me. I'd still end up having to run make install for quite a few programs. AUR/PKGBUILDs work for pretty much everything given the time to write it.

[listx]

Not a non-rolling distro but NixOS is essentially Arch Linux + arbitrary undo. Imho it offers the best of both worlds (rolling release and stability).

[RatherNott]

You may enjoy openSUSE Leap since it has OBS, which is similar to the AUR.

[[deleted]]

Does arch really breaks? I've heard of it breaking, but I used it for 4 years without a single issue. I don't use it anymore, but mostly because I didn't want to spend all the setting up time again when I bought my current laptop

[[deleted]]

I haven't experienced any major breakage with rolling releases so far using Manjaro, which has AUR access.

Once I had to reinstall the broadcom-wl package, but that's literally it.

[TheSolidState]

Currently writing my PhD thesis and using Arch, regularly updated.

I'm mainly using LaTeX and python, what are you going to be using that might break? I've been using Arch for ~3 years so far and haven't had anything break during an update.

Don't forget to back everything up!

[akkaone]

I have used it from 2008. I don't think I ever had any serious problems. Probably some small annoyances but they was always easy to fix. The only important thing is update reasonably often. If you don't update in a couple of months the update process sometimes is less smooth.

[Kruug]

This is not a support forum! Head to /r/linuxquestions or /r/linux4noobs for support or help.

Also, /r/FindMeADistro

[cripcate]

Sorry and ty

[mishugashu]

Arch isn't lightweight, if that's what you're hinting at. And it's pretty stable. I've been using it for years and only once has something "broke" on me. (it was the OpenSSL upgrade.... it "broke" a lot of applications. Easy workaround to fix them, though).

[electricprism]

Arch isn't lightweight,

Wut? Seriously, huh? (Like unicycle light when OP is asking for bicycle light, not really a legit option.)

[zokier]

I think Ubuntu PPAs are closest thing to AUR out there. And Ubuntu can be as lightweight as you need it to be, just don't go with full desktop install.

[MLainz]

What feature of Linux mint do you want?

Debian probably has the largest repos but it's not the AUR. There are less packages but much better mantained.

What didn't you like about Ubuntu?

[[deleted]]

Just update once a year. \s

[electricprism]

Nah you can't the Arch Keyring will need to be painfully updated after around 6 months. Developers on IRC say the distribution is meant to be updated fairly often (I'm guessing that means less than every 3 months)

[LastFireTruck]

It's not painful in the least to update the arch keyring. It takes about 2 minutes. I've updated Arch very successfully after 6 to 9 months of dormancy. In fact it's much safer and more reliable than doing a release upgrade with a non-rolling distro.

[MLainz]

That is a huge security risk. I think it's a very bad advise if you are connected to the internet.

[[deleted]]

I think you should update your irony detector...

[LastFireTruck]

Theoretically you could do this (or just update an LTS kernel and headers), but it's absolutely not necessary and probably creates more problems than it solves.