Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: What is the best Linux distro for a development laptop?

news.ycombinator.com

301–310 of 329 posts

Re: Ask HN: What is the best Linux distro for a development laptop?

#301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why? Because if you miss three releases then you have to do three upgrades. If you setup a system and then come back to it a couple of years later and find you need to upgrade you can plan on fighting through multiple system braking upgrades. Yes I know you can mitigate this with LTS but that's a big compromise.

> Yes I know you can mitigate this with LTS but that's a big compromise. Genuine question as a Ubuntu user, where do you win using Debian on a laptop? I totally understand using it on servers, as it is the definition of 'rock solid' and you can ensure that it will work 100% of the time. Admittedly I don't pay a huge amount of attention to the differences, but isn't using Ubuntu LTS compromising in the same way as Deb…

> Using testing is sworn against by almost everybody, as it's the worst of both worlds - it's not stable and it's not fixed quickly.

Nonsense. Testing is stable and up to date. Ubuntu is based off of testing. Debian's rolling release system makes upgrades easy.

Re: Ask HN: What is the best Linux distro for a development laptop?

#302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> dnf has it beat quite objectively You mean even though the slightest care was not given to reliability while coding it? https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fe...

Depends on your definition of reliability I guess. If I have two scripts running in parallel which both wants to install packages, using apt will cause one of the scripts to fail, because apt is already locked. dnf however will be just fine, because instead of failing it will just queue and wait for the lock to be released. There's small things like that all over which to me, as an end user, makes relying on dnf feel…

[deleted]

Re: Ask HN: What is the best Linux distro for a development laptop?

#303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> dnf has it beat quite objectively You mean even though the slightest care was not given to reliability while coding it? https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fe...

Depends on your definition of reliability I guess. If I have two scripts running in parallel which both wants to install packages, using apt will cause one of the scripts to fail, because apt is already locked. dnf however will be just fine, because instead of failing it will just queue and wait for the lock to be released. There's small things like that all over which to me, as an end user, makes relying on dnf feel…

> Depends on your definition of reliability I guess

No, not at all. Not doing the elementary work to design the package manager in a way that it will keep the system in a consistent state as it is reasonably possible is unreliable. On top of that, if the developers of the said software are ignoring the issue, denying it is their responsibility and tell people to use a different program instead, I will personally not touch it with a 10 foot pole.

Refusing to run when a concurrent copy is already running on the other hand, is just a comfort issue.

> makes relying on dnf feel much safer

So you are OK with ignoring a real reliability issue and a trivial UX behavior is enough for creating an illusion of safety? Check the thread I've posted, Fedora developers are more than happy to recommend not using DNF and using offline updates thing instead.

Now try running multiple instances of "offline update" thingy and see how far it goes in your pet scenario ;)

Re: Ask HN: What is the best Linux distro for a development laptop?

#304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on your definition of reliability I guess. If I have two scripts running in parallel which both wants to install packages, using apt will cause one of the scripts to fail, because apt is already locked. dnf however will be just fine, because instead of failing it will just queue and wait for the lock to be released. There's small things like that all over which to me, as an end user, makes relying on dnf feel…

> Depends on your definition of reliability I guess No, not at all. Not doing the elementary work to design the package manager in a way that it will keep the system in a consistent state as it is reasonably possible is unreliable. On top of that, if the developers of the said software are ignoring the issue, denying it is their responsibility and tell people to use a different program instead, I will personally not…

> so you are OK with ignoring a real reliability issue and a trivial UX behavior

Reliability has many dimensions.

If I can't trust that the package manager handles all the issues you can encounter when managing packages, I cannot trust any component which interacts with the package manager to be reliable either.

dnf does a lot of right things(tm) which apt doesn't, which means I can trust that scripts I write to work with the package manager will work reliably.

Apt outsources approximately 2 out of 3 failure-modes to its users meaning every automated attempt to interact with it, is bound to fail on stupid shit it shouldn't.

And then you can't rely on apt. Apt is not reliable.

To me it seems like a misinformed version of "KISS"/"YAGNI", because you do need a package manager to handle and abstract all those things. That's what it's for.

Re: Ask HN: What is the best Linux distro for a development laptop?

#305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Depends on your definition of reliability I guess No, not at all. Not doing the elementary work to design the package manager in a way that it will keep the system in a consistent state as it is reasonably possible is unreliable. On top of that, if the developers of the said software are ignoring the issue, denying it is their responsibility and tell people to use a different program instead, I will personally not…

> so you are OK with ignoring a real reliability issue and a trivial UX behavior Reliability has many dimensions. If I can't trust that the package manager handles all the issues you can encounter when managing packages, I cannot trust any component which interacts with the package manager to be reliable either. dnf does a lot of right things(tm) which apt doesn't, which means I can trust that scripts I write to work…

OK, now I understand what you mean by reliability and I appreciate that. Thanks for explaining it.

I'm just not comfortable you claiming it is more reliable than apt because then some people will think it is a package manager with minimal amount of importance was attached to its design so that it won't leave the users system in an inconsistent state even in most easily correctable scenarios when that's actually not the case.

Re: Ask HN: What is the best Linux distro for a development laptop?

#306
post #14

I've recently moved to Manjaro (Arch) after trying to upgrade from Kubuntu 14.04 to Kubuntu 16.04 and finding out (you don't wanna know how much time I wasted) that Kubuntu is practically unsupported atm. So I tried Neon (the "new" Kubuntu) ... but they don't even have a working installer. I didn't want to go to Ubuntu directly for the obvious reasons. Now to me stability is everything. I have shit to do and don't ha…

> So I tried Neon (the "new" Kubuntu) ... but they don't even have a working installer. It worked flawlessly for me. Now I wonder if I was lucky or you were unlucky. Oh, and I live it: clean fresh KDE 5 built on a Ubuntu/debian base.

Try using any non-US settings and it will break :). Unless they fixed it, but I know it went unfixed for more than a month because a friend of mine tried as well and got a similar error.

Re: Ask HN: What is the best Linux distro for a development laptop?

#307
post #14

I've recently moved to Manjaro (Arch) after trying to upgrade from Kubuntu 14.04 to Kubuntu 16.04 and finding out (you don't wanna know how much time I wasted) that Kubuntu is practically unsupported atm. So I tried Neon (the "new" Kubuntu) ... but they don't even have a working installer. I didn't want to go to Ubuntu directly for the obvious reasons. Now to me stability is everything. I have shit to do and don't ha…

I occasionally boot into Manjaro/XFCE, it's nice. But i find it a bit odd that you use the term "stability" in conjunction with any rolling distro.

I thought so too. I fought hard against going to a roling release. But so far THIS SPECIFIC CASE seems the superior option.

Re: Ask HN: What is the best Linux distro for a development laptop?

#308
post #93
post #47

I've recently started experimenting with NixOS on my secondary (testbed) laptop at home. (My main home laptop has Windows, while at work we use Ubuntu.) Based on that and posts on this thread, I'd say if you're willing to consider Arch, I'd seriously suggest it might be worth adding NixOS to your list too. In my experience, at some cost, it gives you one particular super -power, that I've never seen anywhere yet. Spe…

> It's one of the few truly purely functional languages around. No IO monads or whatsit. The IO monad, as in Haskell, can be viewed as an entirely pure construct. Its implementation is impure purely because of performance reasons. You can write your own completely pure IO type if you want, with unchanged semantics. A basic example of this would be data IOF r = PutStrLn String r | GetLine (String -> r) deriving Functo…

Even though it’s very much out of context for this thread, it’s a little pearl that brought me again a little bit closer to understanding. Thanks!

Re: Ask HN: What is the best Linux distro for a development laptop?

#309
post #134
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The best development OS is the production OS [...] Ubuntu (Server) and RHEL and Centos are ubiquitous. As is SUSE Linux Enterprise and openSUSE. People often forget about us.

What is the value add for SUSE over Ubuntu? Sell me on it. I'm open minded. I use Ubuntu Server because I know it well, but honestly I don't have any other preference. I don't generally rely on package managers for prod deploys (I like source and it works well with my security restrictions).

> What is the value add for SUSE over Ubuntu?

To start, I'm not a sales person. I'm a developer. If you want a proper sales pitch, you can request one from www.suse.com. Also, if Ubuntu works better for you then that's what works for you -- I work with people from Canonical and RedHat on a daily basis, and I know they make good stuff just like us.

Longer history in enterprise deployments. PTFs and patches for packages are supported in zypper (not true for dpkg). Kernel live patches (no reboot kernel fixes) are supplied as packages. Very good integration with a wide variety of tools such as the Open Build Service (making your own appliances and packages), YaST (our manager for the system which is integrated into everything), snapper (snapshot before and after updates/upgrades/changes), SUSE Manager (allows management of many machines and configuration), and a bunch of other cool stuff.

Also (and this is honestly my fault for being bad at using computers), I've personally never had an Ubuntu install that has worked for more than 4 months.

Re: Ask HN: What is the best Linux distro for a development laptop?

#310

Your post seems to suggest that you won't be developing for Linux and just need something that's a good virtualization host and all-round desktop. In this case, any distribution that you can get along with will do. Especially if you don't have much experience with Linux, Ubuntu and Fedora are both excellent choices. I tend to recommend the latter over the former. If you do actually need to develop for Linux, I would…

> If you do actually need to develop for Linux, I would suggest something with a rolling release model, otherwise it won't be long before you'll need to start compiling things from source because you need a more recent version of than your distro is packaging. It depends on your requirements. If you constantly find yourself needing the latest and greatest upstream software releases, then yes, use a rolling release. B…

> I really wish people would stop making comments like this.

I didn't mean to imply that Fedora isn't a first-class distribution in its own right. In this post's context, I see why it would look that way, and I apologize for it. I don't mean to belittle the work you folks are doing, and I know that the Fedora project is more than just the distro, and that the distro itself is more than just Red Hat's testbed for new features.

I don't run Fedora on any of my home computers anymore. I ran it up to Core 3, I think, having ran Red Hat Linux before. But I've always "ran into" Fedora computers as part of my work and occasionally ran it on my company-issued laptop at $work. While Red Hat's presence can account for some of your stranger choices, it cannot be the only reason behind your success (and I honestly don't think it is).

The origin of my snarky comment is that to many of us outside the Fedora community, it often feels like a lot of things are finding their way into Fedora largely because they need more ample testing. The fact that they're so active and so pushy means that most of them are from Red Hat. I have very few fond memories about dealing with very early breakage from NetworkManager, PulseAudio, systemd and so on. All of them are now successful technologies, but they were not "ready" by any responsible use of the word when they were first included or enabled by default in Fedora. Wayland is, to some degree, an exception, but only because it has already seen wide enough deployment in the embedded/infotainment area that, for once, the desktop is not the earliest adopter.

This is one of the reasons why I recommended Fedora as a development distribution (my wording probably didn't really look like a recommendation, sorry!). At $work, I already work on Linux software; I don't want to deal with more Linux craziness at home, so I tend to stay way from bleeding edge stuff. But if you do need to keep in touch with what's happening in the Linux world, Fedora is the most stable way of doing it that's also reasonably low-maintenance (the second best option, IMHO, is Gentoo).

Staying up-to-date with all these changes is very important, IMHO. For better or for worse, very important pieces of a modern Linux system, like systemd and GTK, are making a lot of breaking changes in-between releases. Running a bleeding-edge system is about the only reasonable way of becoming "passively" acquainted with them, and is a great way of weeding out the subtle bugs that they introduce.

Post reply on HN