Is Ubuntu the most cutting-edge linux?

[pluckypigeon]

I was just wondering if Ubuntu is the most cutting-edge rolling distro.

Anyone have any ideas?

Thanks

[wolfen69]

i believe it is one of a few cutting edge distros. but it is not a rolling release.

[evilkastel]

Well yes and no. We have regular releases, but sometimes that is the reason why some thing get cutted out (ex: OOo 3.0 in INtrepid)

[Sorivenul]

As far as cutting-edge rolling-release goes, Arch may be the top contender.

If you're looking for cutting-edge, non-rolling-release, Fedora is the first distribution that comes to mind.

[iaculallad]

Their are other cutting-edge linux distro's available out there, and Debian (the rock of which Ubuntu is build upon) is one of them (to name some: Gentoo, Fedora, RHEL, and you can add others which you know can be well adopted for production use).

[pluckypigeon]

i believe it is one of a few cutting edge distros. but it is not a rolling release.

Sorry, I assumed that because you can update through the repos it was a rolling release, on a "define:rolling release" google search I see I was wrong. What I meant was a distro that doesn't need to be reinstalled on each release.

[perlluver]

Sorry, I assumed that because you can update through the repos it was a rolling release, on a "define:rolling release" google search I see I was wrong. What I meant was a distro that doesn't need to be reinstalled on each release.

Well on that you are correct, but most of us would recommend a fresh install, because it seems to be smoother in the end.

[pluckypigeon]

I recently had a look at opensuse and tinyme and they aren't as cutting-edge as Ubuntu

[pluckypigeon]

Well on that you are correct, but most of us would recommend a fresh install, because it seems to be smoother in the end.

I hate having to install everything all over again, it's too much effort and time.

[perlluver]

I recently had a look at opensuse and tinyme and they aren't as cutting-edge as Ubuntu

No they are a little more behind. The most up to date, would be Arch and Gentoo, they are both rolling releases, and you don't have to re-install when a newer version comes out.

[perlluver]

I hate having to install everything all over again, it's too much effort and time.

Yeah I can agree with that, but that is why I keep all my stored items on a server in my basement. My main computer, I install a new Linux about every two weeks.

[Sorivenul]

I hate having to install everything all over again, it's too much effort and time.
The only times I need to do a clean install is when I render my "testing branch" installs completely inoperable. This goes for any distribution.

[cardinals_fan]

Their are other cutting-edge linux distro's available out there, and Debian (the rock of which Ubuntu is build upon) is one of them (to name some: Gentoo, Fedora, RHEL, and you can add others which you know can be well adopted for production use).
Juxtaposing the terms "Debian" and "RHEL" near the term "cutting-edge" bemuses me.

I recently had a look at opensuse and tinyme and they aren't as cutting-edge as Ubuntu
If by cutting-edge you mean that the distro has the most recent software releases, Arch is your distro.

[iaculallad]

Juxtaposing the terms "Debian" and "RHEL" near the term "cutting-edge" bemuses me.

If you don't mind me asking, Why is it so?

[handydan918]

If you don't mind me asking, Why is it so?

Because he doesn't know about Debian Sid?

[MikeTheC]

Their are other cutting-edge linux distro's available out there, and Debian (the rock of which Ubuntu is build upon) is one of them.

You're kidding, right? I mean, you do know Debian is typically about 2-3 years behind everyone else due to their "doesn't crash never-ever-ever" stability mandate?

[Sorivenul]

If you don't mind me asking, Why is it so?
While RHEL uses features and applications tested in Fedora, RHEL is an enterprise class OS with stability and commercial support, opting for tried and tested packages over "cutting-edge" packages. Debian, outside of the testing and unstable branches, also uses highly tested, often quite dated packages, and as such is also quite stable. To see them in the list is questionable to me as well.


Because he doesn't know about Debian Sid?
sid is only one part of Debian, and not a branch I would suggest to the average user, even with the sidux existing. While it does fit the "cutting-edge" requirement, it is highly unstable, unpredictable, and thus IMO, unsafe for the average user. I'm sure cardinals_fan is well aware of the sid branch... ;)

[ajcham]

Juxtaposing the terms "Debian" and "RHEL" near the term "cutting-edge" bemuses me.

You have a valid point with RHEL, as (IIUC) it is necessarily behind Fedora. The unstable branch of Debian, however, is very cutting edge.

I would have thought, short of maintaining your own 'Linux from Scratch', Gentoo would be the number one contender for bleeding-edge distro.

[namegame]

Many people consider Arch to be "bleeding-egde." However, even Arch has a testing repo that is not enabled by default. Speaking of which, I have been updating daily from the testing repo for roughly 2 months with no issues whatsoever.

[handydan918]

Debian, outside of the testing and unstable branches, also uses highly tested, often quite dated packages, and as such is also quite stable. To see them in the list is questionable to me as well."Debian, outside of the testing and unstable branches"...Sure, justify a silly statement by eliminating 2/3 of the pool. Debian includes testing and unstable. BTW, the monikers stable and unstable as used on the Debian branches have nothing to do with "stability" in the sense of "will it crash?"


sid is only one part of Debian, and not a branch I would suggest to the average user, even with the sidux existing. While it does fit the "cutting-edge" requirement, it is highly unstable, unpredictable, and thus IMO, unsafe for the average user.

Agreed. However, as I have already implied, Debian stable is only one branch of Debian, too. between testing and unstable, most of Debian is pretty up-to-date stuff.

Besides, it hasn't been my experience that Ubu is the king of stability. I routinely get 100+day uptimes on a couple of my boxen, usually only killed by power outages, etc. I haven't seen that to be the rule with Ubu.
Too cutting-edge, I guess.

:P

[Sorivenul]

I would have thought, short of maintaining your own 'Linux from Scratch', Gentoo would be the number one contender for bleeding-edge distro.
Gentoo can be, and so can LFS. However, the default LFS manual does not always use the most recent versions of applications available.

[cardinals_fan]

Because he doesn't know about Debian Sid?
I would never recommend Sid to anyone, hence my comment. However, it is always an option (if you like taking chances).

[wolfen69]

I hate having to install everything all over again, it's too much effort and time.

a couple hours every 6 months is too much? how much time do you waste watching tv?

[halovivek]

Ubuntu is one of the most cutting edge in Linux. but not the leader or so. It should need some more developments to go ahead.
some of the basic problems are there in ubuntu and it should get solved. as i noticed the ubuntu forums. i can say two main problems are there.
1. sound problems
2, network problems
Any more comments on this?

[Eisenwinter]

Their are other cutting-edge linux distro's available out there, and Debian (the rock of which Ubuntu is build upon) is one of them
Debian is not cutting edge at all, in fact, it has a release like every 1 - 2 years, and all of it's software is VERY out of date.

It's as far from cutting edge as you can get.

[bryonak]

"Debian, outside of the testing and unstable branches"...Sure, justify a silly statement by eliminating 2/3 of the pool. Debian includes testing and unstable.
However, as I have already implied, Debian stable is only one branch of Debian, too.


Debian == Debian stable, aka the final version.
Testing and unstable are betas and alphas for Debian, like Jaunty for Ubuntu at the moment. The reason why so many people use Testing is because it's going on for such a long time, and because Debian's such a huge project.

So it's not like stable is just "one branch", but it's in fact the "real" Debian, the point releases.
Hence many of us view Debian as quite the opposite of "bleeding-edge", though that isn't a bad thing, much rather an advantage for it's application area.



Besides, it hasn't been my experience that Ubu is the king of stability.

Sure, it's based on Debian Sid, what do you expect? But that's the price of being up-to-date.

On topic: I'd say Ubuntu is definitely one of the most "bleeding-edge" non-rolling distributions.

[juanmoreno92]

Gentoo is your distro. Portage is better than sliced bread.

[gnomeuser]

I was just wondering if Ubuntu is the most cutting-edge rolling distro.

Anyone have any ideas?

Thanks

Fedora, every release has the lastest kernel, X stack, GNOME/KDE e.g.. Additionally each release gets updates to the kernel as you use it as well as other components. An upgrade path is provided to jump on new releases.

With Fedora you also get technology before any other distro, it is currently the only distro to have a release with kernel modesetting, GEM and DRI2.

Fedora helps make technology happen, the price though is that it doesn't always work equally well for everyone. We fix issues by working upstream and issuing major package upgrades.

Fedora is not for the faint of heart or those with restricted bandwidth, you easily suck down updates several times a week and it's definitely a good idea to know where bugzilla is hiding.. just in case. Generally it is a very pleasant ride though and well stable.

[SomeGuyDude]

Ubuntu is neither cutting-edge nor rolling release, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. The devs want things to be rock solid and Ubuntu-ified, so they can't be as bleeding-edge as something like Arch. Fedora's packages tend to be more recent and Debian Sid (or its Sidux variant) are similarly brand spankin' new.

Like others have said, if you want cutting edge and rolling, try out Arch. Gentoo, as much as I'd like to slog through it, just seems like too much compiling and elbows-deep fiddling for most people.

[chucky chuckaluck]

i'm under the impression that if you customize ubuntu too much, the upgrade will fail miserably. is that true/still true?

[Dark Aspect]

i'm under the impression that if you customize ubuntu too much, the upgrade will fail miserably. is that true/still true?

Maybe if you modify the repositories.

[Mason Whitaker]

Fedora is the testing grounds for Red Hat, so you can always see some neat new stuff rolling out.

As previously said though, it updates alot.

[Half-Left]

i'm under the impression that if you customize ubuntu too much, the upgrade will fail miserably. is that true/still true?

No, what does happen is if you install your own kernel Ubuntu wipes it out of the grub menu when you get a Ubuntu kernel update(this doesn't happen in archlinux). As for upgrades wiping out your custom install, well that happens on any package manager/distro if you dont remove or use a different prefix.

Redhat develop alot of linux tech so yes Fedora will get this stuff first, Fedora are more bleeding edge, Opensuse have become more bleeding edge(they used to use old gnome releases).

[handydan918]

Debian == Debian stable, aka the final version.
Testing and unstable are betas and alphas for Debian, like Jaunty for Ubuntu at the moment. The reason why so many people use Testing is because it's going on for such a long time, and because Debian's such a huge project.

So it's not like stable is just "one branch", but it's in fact the "real" Debian, the point releases.
Hence many of us view Debian as quite the opposite of "bleeding-edge", though that isn't a bad thing, much rather an advantage for it's application area.
Wow. Quite a large collection of unsupported assertions of fact.
To which I can only reply, "Oh yeah? Well, huh-uh!" C'mon. Unless you can show me your crown and scepter, I'll interpret reality for myself, thanks. And the reality is that Debian doesn't call testing or unstable "betas". They call them "testing" and "unstable" branches.


Sure, it's based on Debian Sid, what do you expect? But that's the price of being up-to-date. And so we complain about Sid being too unstable...wow.


On topic: I'd say Ubuntu is definitely one of the most "bleeding-edge" non-rolling distributions.
If you say so, your majesty.

[pp.]

Ubuntu caters to naive users and aims to reach a large user base.

That would tend to speak against it being cutting edge.

[billgoldberg]

I was just wondering if Ubuntu is the most cutting-edge rolling distro.

Anyone have any ideas?

Thanks

Lol, not at all.

And it's certainly isn't a rolling release distro.

--

I use Arch, that could be considered cutting edge.

[billgoldberg]

Ubuntu is one of the most cutting edge in Linux. but not the leader or so. It should need some more developments to go ahead.
some of the basic problems are there in ubuntu and it should get solved. as i noticed the ubuntu forums. i can say two main problems are there.
1. sound problems
2, network problems
Any more comments on this?

With cutting edge, the OP is talking about how up to date Ubuntu is.

Well, it's always around 6 months behind rolling release distro's.

So it isn't cutting edge at all.

[billgoldberg]

Many people consider Arch to be "bleeding-egde." However, even Arch has a testing repo that is not enabled by default. Speaking of which, I have been updating daily from the testing repo for roughly 2 months with no issues whatsoever.

True, but because applications goes out of testing into the main repos doesn't mean they are stable (see new xorg version that recently caused a lot of issues).

:p

[koenn]

Wow. Quite a large collection of unsupported assertions of fact.
To which I can only reply, "Oh yeah? Well, huh-uh!" C'mon. Unless you can show me your crown and scepter, I'll interpret reality for myself, thanks. And the reality is that Debian doesn't call testing or unstable "betas". They call them "testing" and "unstable" branches.And so we complain about Sid being too unstable...wow.

bryonak is right, nonetheless.
you can live happily in your own interpretation of reality, but in the world outside your head, Debian defines the "stable" distribution as "the latest officially released distribution of Debian". Unstable is where development occurs, and testing is a repo where packages from unstable are tested in relation to other packages (to find out about incompatibilities or dependency issues).
So, although it is possible to use packages from testing and unstable, or even install an entire system based on those branches, the current Debian release is the "stable" one, and it is rarely cutting-edge.

http://www.debian.org/releases/

[ithanium]

I really think Ubuntu is one of the best linuxes out there because of its great comunity

[bryonak]

@handydan:
Woah, let's cool it a tad off, shall we? I think your tone is a bit off.

I didn't mean to attack you in person, I just saw someone writing something which wasn't completely right... very obviously, at least to me.

Sure they aren't called "alpha" and "beta", but unstable and testing fill the "alpha" and "beta" roles of other projects with Debian.
Their policy is the same as for example Jaunty's alpha/beta: not official, not final, use at own risk, don't use for production.
They are not what Debian officially presents to the public, hence "the stable branch == Debian".




Feel free to skip the following if you like... I just wrote it and don't feel like deleting, but it doesn't really enrich anyone's perspective.


And so we complain about Sid being too unstable...
Yes? You said yourself that Ubuntu (which is based on Sid) isn't the king of stability. From your general sarcastic tone I take it that you mean it's very unstable, but maybe that's too much interpretation.

Besides, why'd you accept a bent reality if it comes from someone with a crown and scepter? ;)

[InfinityCircuit]

@handydan:
Woah, let's cool it a tad off, shall we? I think your tone is a bit off.

I didn't mean to attack you in person, I just saw someone writing something which wasn't completely right... very obviously, at least to me.

Sure they aren't called "alpha" and "beta", but unstable and testing fill the "alpha" and "beta" roles of other projects with Debian.
Their policy is the same as for example Jaunty's alpha/beta: not official, not final, use at own risk, don't use for production.
They are not what Debian officially presents to the public, hence "the stable branch == Debian".




Feel free to skip the following if you like... I just wrote it and don't feel like deleting, but it doesn't really enrich anyone's perspective.


Yes? You said yourself that Ubuntu (which is based on Sid) isn't the king of stability. From your general sarcastic tone I take it that you mean it's very unstable, but maybe that's too much interpretation.

Besides, why'd you accept a bent reality if it comes from someone with a crown and scepter? ;)

People have talked about the use of Arch with the "Testing" repository enabled.

People (like myself) have tracked pure Sid for 5 years, since the first Kanotix release. Are we not using a "real distribution"? Sidux is based on Debian Sid. Is that not a real distribution?

Testing/Sid are not like Alpha/Beta versions; stable is attached as a moniker when no new upstream versions will be included. http://www.debian.org/releases/ does say that Stable is "recommended". It also gives positive reasons why others use testing and unstable.

In any case, the question asked "what is the most cutting edge rolling distro." The Debian branches that qualify for that are testing and unstable.

Nothing about the question seems to exclude the discussion of Gentoo overlays or hardmasking or Arch testing repositories. You are the one reading such a constraint into the original post.

[MasterNetra]

Is there a GUI based Live CD of Arch somewhere out there?

[cardinals_fan]

Is there a GUI based Live CD of Arch somewhere out there?
Chakra is under construction.

[namegame]

True, but because applications goes out of testing into the main repos doesn't mean they are stable (see new xorg version that recently caused a lot of issues).

:p

If I read correctly, the new Xorg is/was completely stable. What changed was how it works with devices. The change threw a curveball to some users, not the instability.

I'll look for some documentation to back this statement up. I'll just have to dig around.

Found it:

(From the Arch wiki)


Input hotplugging
Input hotplugging is enabled in the 1.5.x series of the xorg-server package, which is now included in the extra repo. When input hotplugging is enabled, X will purge any devices setup in xorg.conf that are using the kbd and mouse driver. This may result in X appearing to freeze and result in your not being able to move your mouse or use your keyboard.

There are two options to correct this:

1) Configure input hotplugging by installing the xf86-input-evdev driver and configuring HAL to use the kbd/mouse drivers. Start the hal daemon before anything related to X.Org is started:
/etc/rc.d/hal start
Add the hal daemon to the DAEMONS array in /etc/rc.conf to start it at every boot. See the article on Xorg input hotplugging for full details.

2) Disable input hotplugging by adding Option "AutoAddDevices" "False" to ServerFlags in /etc/X11/xorg.conf. This will skip devices detected by hal and will use your keyboard/mouse configuration from xorg.conf
# nano /root/xorg.conf.new
and add the following

Section "ServerFlags"
Option "AutoAddDevices" "False"
EndSection


On a somewhat related note. I strongly recommend that if you are new to Arch to not Install via the Chakra LiveCD. You'll miss some VERY important issues pertaining to Arch.

[Frak]

You're kidding, right? I mean, you do know Debian is typically about 2-3 years behind everyone else due to their "doesn't crash never-ever-ever" stability mandate?
Their experimental branch is updated in mere hours of a new software release. I wouldn't call them 2-3 years behind, that is their stable/ultra-hardened branch.

[ghindo]

i'm under the impression that if you customize ubuntu too much, the upgrade will fail miserably. is that true/still true?I don't think so. However, I've been really irritated at Ubuntu's tendency to reinstall the "ubuntu-desktop" package during upgrades, meaning things I usually uninstall (i.e. Ekiga, Soundjuicer, etc.) are automatically reinstalled during every upgrade.

It's really annoying.

[Wanas]

I think debian sid and opensuse is the most cutting edge this moments !!
is this true ? (dont ask me about fedora because I havnt tried it before :S)
I always wondering to use opensuse to be my default desktop, but one thing makes me comes back to ubuntu and debain is the synaptic manager, I tried to install synaptic manager in opensuse but it didnt work :(

[dragos240]

Arch or gentoo. Arch is the safe cutting edge distro. While...... gentoo is so sharp you may as well cut yourself with a razorblade.

[kk0sse54]

Arch or gentoo. Arch is the safe cutting edge distro. While...... gentoo is so sharp you may as well cut yourself with a razorblade.

Have you ever used gentoo before? Fact: Arch features newer and more up to date packages than Gentoo stable. A better comparison would be between default Arch and the testing branch of Gentoo, in which I find Arch still doesn't come near Gentoo in terms of stability. But's that's just my own personal observations.

[running_rabbit07]

Yes & No. Depends on what your vision of cutting edge is.

[hanzomon4]

I was just wondering if Ubuntu is the most cutting-edge rolling distro.

Anyone have any ideas?

Thanks

No

[dragos240]

Have you ever used gentoo before? Fact: Arch features newer and more up to date packages than Gentoo stable. A better comparison would be between default Arch and the testing branch of Gentoo, in which I find Arch still doesn't come near Gentoo in terms of stability. But's that's just my own personal observations.

Sharp isn't always a bad thing. In my case, I was saying that it is indeed very stable.

[woedend]

Ubuntu-dev releases are as cutting edge as you can get, with exception to perhaps Fedora or Opensuses dev releases(they are all pretty close...i'd give the edge to fedora). That said, Ubuntu-dev is probably the most stable of the 3 cutting edges. As far as *stable* cutting edge goes...arch is probably a clear winner...although imo arch stable with gnome has tons of problems lately.

[Stan_1936]

I was just wondering if Ubuntu is the most cutting-edge rolling distro.

Anyone have any ideas?

Thanks

As much as I hate it, I think it is really Arch(or perhaps Gentoo???...from what I've read over the years) that would be the most cutting edge. Fedora may also be up there, but I think Arch is #1 in this regard.

[zipperback]

I was just wondering if Ubuntu is the most cutting-edge rolling distro.

It can be as cutting edge as you want it to be.

You can always install the most current release of open source software by downloading and compiling it from the source.

And there are numerous third party repositories available too.

For example, I have KDE 4.3 running on Ubuntu Jaunty. I've got numerous other applications which I downloaded and compiled from source as well. I tried KDE 4 when it first came out and wasn't happy with it, so I stuck to Gnome at the time. However you can can have multiple desktop systems on the same computer, so currently for example when my wife logs into this laptop, she gets a Gnome desktop, when I login to this laptop I have KDE 4.3.

Ubuntu is an excellent and very flexible distribution that can be as cutting edge as any other distribution. Linux is about choice and freedom. And that in itself is a pretty cutting edge concept. =D> :mrgreen: :biggrin: :guitar:

- zipperback
:popcorn:

[sertse]

Fedora or Arch.

Arch for most day to day things; upgrades, updated versions of stuff.

Fedora however, because of its place in the linux hierarchy (including but *not* just it's RH links) is often the distro behind actually "creating" new, fundamentally changing concepts.

Arch is the edge of the present, Fedora is not as to the edge of the present, but for many things it's look to the future...

[Katalog]

I'd probably have to say Fedora as well, as far as mainstream distros. I used it for a year or two and they always seemed to have a few pieces of "not quite ready for prime time" technologies/software, and/or included something that had been almost literally rolled out as final within days prior the latest release. I'm sure their feature freeze schedules and such are probably more strict by now, but in the early days it almost seemed like a free for all.