[H-GEN] unbloated, stable, rolling release distros

[Paul Gear]

On 25/10/11 13:32, Mick wrote:
> ...
> Just wondering what is available these days in the way of unbloated,
> stable, rolling release distros.

Hi Mick,

As a sort of meta-answer, might i suggest that you re-think what you're
asking of your distro?  In my experience, it's very difficult for a
distro to be all of those things.  If you want unbloated and stable, you
generally should expect it to be a little slower to release and less
feature-rich.  If you want to be up-to-date, you tend to have to
sacrifice memory efficiency and stability.

> ...
> debian 3r0 was fine but OLD even at release performed well once I built
> a decent kernel
>
> debian 3r1 slower than a 3 legged donkey in the melbourne cup. tried to
> build a kernel but selinux refused to let it run.

I can't fix your experiences with it, but i've found all the Debian
releases from 3 to 6 to be very solid.  I run it on all my servers, and
i like the fact that there's not a release every 6-12 months (saves a
lot of upgrade time! :-) ).

> (k)ubuntu - if there was any option that just one person MIGHT use once
> in their lifetime it was locked in, bloated was a gross understatement.
> then they went to KDE4 and half the functionality was left behind but
> you could never run out of eye candy to play with.

I use Ubuntu 10.04 LTS on my laptop.  The big win for me came when i
realised that i didn't actually need more up-to-date versions of
everything and stuck on LTS.  Prior to that my laptop had been upgraded
to every standard release, and i spent a lot more time on care & feeding
and a lot less time being productive.  I don't like where Canonical is
going with Unity, so if they don't support something vaguely reminiscent
of GNOME 2 on the next LTS release, i'll probably head back to Debian.

> I have also flirted with slackware but found package management was
> like groping in the dark wearing oven mittens.

You would have to pay me a lot of money to recommend a distribution that
was not apt- or yum-based.  I think apt is a little more lightweight,
stable, and feature-rich, but yum has made great strides in the last few
years and is pretty functional now (it was extremely bloated for the
hardware of the RH9-FC1 era).

I'm very happy with the combination i have now, with Debian on the
server and Ubuntu LTS on the desktop/laptop, but that reflects my choice
of tending more towards stability and low bloat, and that means i'm a
little behind the update curve.  If you want a distro that leans a
little more towards the bleeding edge, OpenSUSE or Fedora Core might be
more your style; but don't forget that it's a trade-off of size and
stability vs. up-to-date features.

Regards,
Paul