What makes a Linux Distribution Stable instead of Not-Stable? (full-disclosure: I wrote this for Reddit - /r/ManjaroLinux - but I think I'd love to know what you think about the subject))

mrbig
2019-10-02T05:16:32Z

Introduction

I wanna say that I made several corrections, additions, and improvements just because I love you guys way more than I love the people at Reddit

Please note that I'm merely a dedicated Linux user, I'm speaking from that point of view. I'm not a developer and not a programmer. These are just my opinions of 10+ years using Linux

These are just some commentaries from a dude who happen to love the concept of STABILITY in general (autism represent) and would like to discuss how it works when it comes to Linux distributions. This is all based on my use-cases and on what I think is common sense. I have no knowledge of how open-source projects really work, and make no claims regarding how they should work.

Only distributions that claim to be stable are under my scope. So Arch and Debian Unstable are clearly out the scope, but Slackware, CentOS, Debian Buster, and MX-Linux are clearly under the scope.

All considerations are void if the malfunctioning is SOLELY a product of hardware, extremely rare conditions or your own lack of knowledge.

Except when otherwise noted, non-compliance means the distribution is deemed not stable.

1 Deal Breakers

After a correct installation by the user on hardware that is expressly supported by the developers, a stable distribution should, in the period of 1 year (counted from the first boot):

1. Remains bootable, manageable and fully accessible.

2. Work with almost no maintenance or intervention (updates excluded)

3. Present no decrease in performance

4. Freeze at most once every two weeks

5. Have no package issue that cannot be solved by a simple command from its own package manager

2 Major Issues

Because of the complex nature of major issues, I'm not going to establish any criteria about them. Both stable and unstable distributions have critical problems that cannot have a fixed time-frame.

3 Minor Issues/Bugs/Annoyances/etc

Small issues are the ones that do not impede the usage of the machine, but provoke significant annoyances:

Examples:

1. Window switching is not working properly

2. The mouse stops working for 3 seconds every 15 minutes

3. For some reason, the letter "c" is sending "h" on the terminal

4. My configurations are not saved after reboot

5. My configurations are not being saved at all

6. I must change video output manually every time I switch monitors

7. I must change audio output manually every time I switch monitors

8. Some essential configuration is ridiculously hard to find

9. Configurations have no undo button

10. Configurations have no reset button

11. A certain package cannot be installed

12. A certain dependence cannot be installed (dependency hell)

13. There's a ridiculously accessible keyboard shortcut that makes your keyboard change layouts all the fucking time

3.1 Places for Research

Such minor issues must be solved within 30 days, as long as the user does their part and seek some of the following resources:

1. Google

2. Official websites

3. Official forums

4. Official warnings, newsletters, etc

5. Semi-official communities

6. FAQs

7. Manuals

8. Github Issues

9. Gitlab Issues

10. Other Venues to post issues

If the minor issue is not solved in 45+ days, the distribution will be deemed not stable, regardless of the behavior of the user.

4. Conclusion

It is my opinion that, if any of the major and minor requirements are not fulfilled according to their particular rules, the distribution in question should not be deemed not Stable.

Comments URL: https://tildes.net/~comp/i0s/what_makes_a_linux_distribution_stable_instead_of_not_stable_full_disclosure_i_wrote_this_for

Votes: 4

Comments: 0