88
I'm in the process of making a distro that combines the way SteamOS makes Arch Linux stable and user-friendly WITH the performance optimizations of CachyOS (pu-239.org)
submitted 3 days ago by to c/linux@lemmy.ml
129 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

As the title and the website say, I'm currently making a distro with the goal that you don't have to compromise between ease of use + safety and bleeding-edge + performance optimizations.

As I will likely be able to publish the 0.0.1 source code to the GitHub link and the ISO to the website sometime next week, I would like people to be aware of my project so I can have some feedback for further improvements when I release the first version. I have not posted this anywhere else yet, as I value the opinion of this community more than Reddit or whatever.

If you have any questions or any criticism, please voice it, I would love to hear it, good or bad, in the end I want to make a proper OS. (I'll go to bed now so expect replies to take a few hours from posting.)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 27 points 3 days ago (4 children)

I have no idea what people keep talking about when they say Arch/CachyOS is "unstable". I have had so many more issues with running Debian (usually on servers) over the years. Since I swapped my desktop to CachyOS over a year ago, I have basically no issues at all. Just one very minor thing that fixed itself after a few days (bug in kde on new version released). For like 15 months of use, that's spectacular compared to any other system I've ever used (especially including Debian and of course Windows, obviously).

What exactly is the goal? How do you make "no issues" and "it just works" more stable?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 18 points 3 days ago* (2 children)

    Stable vs Unstable does not mean anything to do with bugginess or prone to breakage.

    It literally just means package version changes.

    Stable meaning packages update slowly and only minor versions or security.

    Unstable means packages update frequently including major versions

    Inherently rolling releases are unstable.

    My personal experience too is that Arch has been the best distro for lack of bugs and issues on my machines than Fedora or Debian etc.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 days ago

    This is why we should call it "bleeding edge" rather than "unstable" it's a much more accurate name and it exemplifies the advantages (albeit leaving out the (minor) disadvantages)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 days ago* (1 child)

    Stable vs Unstable does not mean anything to do with bugginess or prone to breakage

    It would be great if that's how the words were actually used, but in most discussions I've seen it is certainly not the case. Also, when talking to new users, they are supposed to magically understand and know the word is used in a niche way in this context? It certainly won't be what they take from it when hearing or reading it.

    Unstable means packages update frequently including major versions

    That's what we have rolling or bleeding edge for. Sure, unstable can mean that when used within the same project/context. So having different releases be stable and unstable for the same thing, but across projects/distros that's just confusing, especially for new people. Yes I'm aware of the historic reasons and the roots in software development, but I'd argue it isn't helpful to convey the practical reality of the differences.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago

    I don't disagree that it causes confusion and that people conflate the two meanings especially for those unaware of what it is supposed to mean.

    And inherently as well being an unstable distro as far as package updates goes likely leads to it being "unstable" in day to day use as far as bugs etc obviously goes hand in hand which further conflates the meaning.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    I have no idea what people keep talking about when they say Arch/CachyOS is “unstable”.

    a) stable in the sense of not changing, or more specific not changing dramatically the user experience and not breaking compatibility, so you can rely on being the same, and b) stable in the sense of not breaking by bugs and issues. Those are two different topics sharing the same wording of stable/unstable. It's a similar issue of the word "Free", which could mean either Open Source or no cost in money.

    Archlinux is unstable, in the sense that it changes frequently, without warning for most of the time, and this can break compatibility or user experience. Compare the other extreme Debian, which is very stable.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 days ago (3 children)

    Compare the other extreme Debian, which is very stable.

    In the sense that is unchanging, sure. But that's one hell of a bad word to describe that in this context. In my experience the incompatibilities caused by only ancient versions of things available in the repo of even a newly released Debian are not helpful. Stable wouldn't be the word I choose to describe the situation, or the fiddling and tinkering that results from that. Often having to go outside of the repo to solve, defeating the whole point of said repo.

    Arch in my limited experience is much more stable, in the sense of "just works" and always having up to date software. If I want to use something, I can just install it (from the repo), the chance of it not being the current release are slim.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    You're coming into a discussion about two different linux release models misunderstanding both their established terminology and their purposes, and then claiming one of them is "bad" because you tried to use Debian in a way it wasn't intended to be used.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 child)

    I didn't claim anything is bad, anywhere.

    Also I didn't "try to use Debian in a way it wasn't inteded to be used". I am using debian on 90% of my servers/vms/containers to this day. Have been for literally decades. To give a specific example: I was running a nextcloud, which required PHP, and wanted to update that. The newer version reuqired a higher PHP version, because the currently installed PHP version was EoL and not supported anymore (by PHP maintainers or Nextcloud). So updating required removing the debian-provided PHP version and installing one from other sources (external repo or compile from source), which honestly defeats the point of a "stable" distribution if the software provided is EoL, doesn't it?

    And to be clear this is just one example I can specifically remember. The "issues" I encouter when using debian are usually of that general type. And to be clear, that's mostly the point of using it on a server, where I use it, but even there it sometimes goes a bit too far.

    And finally: I was originally arguing the semantics of calling debian stable and arch UNstable, which it is not. It is rolling, it might be bleeding edge. It's also isn't the same as having a stable and unstable release branch (within the same distro) when applying the label to the most stable release of different distros.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 days ago

    which honestly defeats the point of a "stable" distribution if the software provided is EoL, doesn't it?

    Again, the point of a stable release model is that its packaged software doesn't have breaking changes for the lifetime of the release. Install something from those repos and it's guaranteed to run in the same way for the full lifecycle while still getting minor and security updates. So if the software you're externally layering on top of that suddenly requires new dependencies that you have to install externally too, and you don't like that, that's more a problem based on a misunderstanding of Debian than a problem with Debian.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 3 days ago

    The word stable for describing unchanged is a common way of doing so. Especially to differentiate them from their development or experimental versions. That contributes to confusion and disagreements with the other meaning of the word. Unfortunately this word is common usage in both cases. In example Archlinux as a rolling release is unstable by definition. It does not mean its unstable in sense of issues, however depending on the user and use case it can be unstable a lot (or stable a lot).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 3 points 3 days ago

    I'm completely on your side, I have NEVER had less issues with an OS ever since running Arch and/or CachyOS, however issues could arise and that is enough for the usual Reddit dickhead to talk someone who's asking for their first distro out of using anything Arch based. I'm tired of hearing these fucking "no you can't recommend CachyOS, a new user should not touch Arch", "CachyOS will break three times within your first week of using it", "it has the AUR so you will contract HIV instantly by using it", I just can't hear it anymore which is why I want to provide people with an option that still has them on an Arch based distro but with added peace of mind and speed optimizations out of the box. You know, that's the thing, I personally find Arch easy and intuitive and don't get where people get the idea that it breaks all the time from, but that IS the perception however.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago (1 child)

    You're doing something very wrong if Debian keeps breaking things for you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 days ago

    I didn't say "it suddenly breaks". I said I have more issues with it, which is decided different from "it just works", which has been my experience on CachyOS. Specifically I mean issues with installing (up to date) software, or using software that has requirements that I just can't install the required version cause the repo has a version from 3+ years ago. Not everything has to be "bleeding edge", but being so stable that everything is utterly outdated is also a kind of unstable.

    Sometimes this goes so far that the "stable" version shipped by debian is already unsupported upstream with all the security implications that entails (I had that once with PHP, I think).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent