What is the most upto date distro?

[woodbj]

I want to always have the latest of everything so what distro would be best for this?

[Xiong Chiamiov]

Most up-to-date is probably Debian Sid, but there's frequent breakage. Most bleeding-edge with stability is Arch Linux.

[woodbj]

Thanks I might give Arch Linux a whirl

[inobe]

up to date ?

newest xorg/ linux kernel/ desktop environment ?

my opinion' it's opensuse & ubuntu w- gnome or kde

[LookTJ]

My opinion would be Arch

[gnomeuser]

Fedora, even the stable branch gets updates for the latest and greatest through it's lifetime.

You may also want to examine something like Foresight which is specifically designed towards being a rolling release with all that entails.

[bigbrovar]

Its just got to be arch... being a rolling release and all .. it just updates to the latest version of any package available .. e.g kde 4.2 was in the arch repos even before it was officially released. and users of 4.1 were able to update to 4.2 without sweat.. already xfce 4.6 is in the arch repo. and i wont be surprised if the latest gnome is already there..

[mcduck]

Any distro with rolling releases. Like Gentoo or Arch.

[binbash]

Then you should go for a rolling distro like gentoo, archlinux etc

[sujoy]

Arch definitely. And its stable too (provided you read before you upgrade ;) )

[wannadumpwindows]

Without question, Arch.

It takes a little more work than most, but it's worth it if you want the latest and greatest.

[Trail]

Hmm I don't know, I've been using OpenSUSE's KDE builds for quite a while, and it's been quite 'bleeding' for me. Reading this thread makes me curious about Arch.

Anyone that has tried both and could state an opinion? Only interested in KDE4 btw.

[SunnyRabbiera]

Well one should not equate latest with greatest, sometimes old stable software is better then bleeding edge.
Thats why I use Ubuntu

[Greg]

Hmm I don't know, I've been using OpenSUSE's KDE builds for quite a while, and it's been quite 'bleeding' for me. Reading this thread makes me curious about Arch.

Anyone that has tried both and could state an opinion? Only interested in KDE4 btw.

They're quite different. OpenSuse is a more stable, graphical distro than Arch, which is a hands on, text based rolling release distro.

[K.Mandla]

Pfft. I get new software with Crux long before Arch does. Build it yourself and you can use any version you darn well like, new or old.

[Eisenwinter]

Arch Linux with the testing repository enabled for Pacman.

EDIT:

K.Mandla brings up a good point. I could compile all my software from scratch, and not use the distribution's package manager.

This could also be done on Ubuntu, or Debian, or any "solid stable release cycle" distro.

Question is invalid, or, needs to be redefined as for it's meaning.

If the question is "Which distribution's package manager is the most up to date", then I have to say (from the distros I've used), Arch with testing repository enabled.

[Skripka]

Thanks I might give Arch Linux a whirl

If you're wanting something like *buntu but bleeding edge, Arch is not it. You haven't said one way or another, hence my warning. Arch is built by you from the command line, there is no hand-holding GUI during install.

[snowpine]

I agree with all the Arch votes so far, but also wanted to put in a good word for Sidux. Sidux is based on Debian, so it will feel very familiar to an experienced Ubuntu user. Two thumbs way up if you basically like Ubuntu but want a rolling release.

[Simian Man]

Well one should not equate latest with greatest, sometimes old stable software is better then bleeding edge.
Thats why I use Ubuntu

Hope you're enjoying OpenOffice 2, KDE 4.1 and Eclipse 3.2!

Fedora is the most up to date distro with discrete releases.

[ryaxnb]

Most up-to-date is probably Debian Sid, but there's frequent breakage. Most bleeding-edge with stability is Arch Linux.

Wrong. Debian sid is well known for frequent slowness to be up-to-date with things like linux kernel, gnome, and it still doesn't have kde 4. Debian sid and thus sidux is out. Perhaps Fedora. Fedora is remarkably uptodate and has a large variety of third party repos with the very latest stuff avavilable. :) Fedora is a nice distro. Arch is hard to use but is uptodate, one problem is availability of every package you want. Gentoo is another nice choice.

[ryaxnb]

If you're wanting something like *buntu but bleeding edge, Arch is not it. You haven't said one way or another, hence my warning. Arch is built by you from the command line, there is no hand-holding GUI during install.

it's not just install either it's maintenance and such. Fedora is a easier choice.

[Eisenwinter]

Arch is hard to use

I don't mean to thread-jack, as there are already several threads about Arch, but I have to say, Arch is one of the easiest distros to use.

You just set it up, and then do nothing.

All you need to do is pacman -Syu to sync your repositories and update packages every few 1-2 days or so.

It does everything for you. Not in the way Ubuntu does (don't mean to offend Ubuntu users), but more like, maintaining Arch is very, very easy, and take barely any effort at all.

The catch is, that you do have to manually configure files, and etc - but, you end up with a system that's fully customized for YOU.

Again, I don't mean to thread jack, so please lets continue with the original subject of this thread.

Like I said, from my experience, Arch with the testing repository enabled, is the most up-to-date distro, but like I also said, it depends.

If you install all packages from source, without using the package manager once, then you get all the latest packages. Does that make the distribution you use the most up to date? No. Because you haven't actually used its' package manager.

This is why I think the question should be refined to "Which distro's package manager is the most up to date?", rather than "Which distro is the most up to date?".

Because being up to date could be achieved on any distro (yes, even Debian stable), you just need to install the latest programs, be it by source, or from the package manager, or in some other way.

[inobe]

Hmm I don't know, I've been using OpenSUSE's KDE builds for quite a while, and it's been quite 'bleeding' for me. Reading this thread makes me curious about Arch.
KDE4 btw.

i feel the same way, arch does have me curious too...


as for the topic description, i am wondering what the topic starters preferences are !

newest as in stable ?

[yabbadabbadont]

LFS - It's as up to date as you like. (and no more)

[Daisuke_Aramaki]

Any rolling release distro should do it! I can vouch for Lunar Linux and Sorcerer Linux. Lunar Linux's moonbase gets refreshed almost every week, with the newest sources, and its the same with Sorcerer's Grimoire, which gets updated more than twice a week! gcc, glibc, and kernel take a while to get updated, but if you are into compiling them yourself, then it should be a breeze as well! Arch is the best, when it comes to binary based rolling distro!

[cardinals_fan]

Arch is hard to use but is uptodate, one problem is availability of every package you want.
"Hard to use" is ridiculously subjective and isn't really valid in the description of any OS without additional details.


You just set it up, and then do nothing.
Unless you get breakage, which is inevitable with anything anywhere near the bleeding edge.


If you install all packages from source, without using the package manager once, then you get all the latest packages. Does that make the distribution you use the most up to date? No. Because you haven't actually used its' package manager.

This is true. I would say SliTaz if we accept self-built packages because Tazwok streamlines the process of creating them.

@OP/topic: I would recommend Arch (as a rolling release) or Fedora (which has stable releases but sometimes pushes new versions into them).

[sertse]

Sidux? The sidux stuff "stablises" Sid somewhar; rolling release, and generally very up to date; and being debian based, it would be familiar for someone coming from ubuntu, though there are a few things to learn.

[Yashiro]

Up to date releases cannot be called stable. They are not tested enough. If you want to be bang upto date and are OK with things breaking then use Arch. But this is not an 'easy' distribution to get into. It is not intended to be.
It is for people with prior knowledge of computers who are willing to learn their systems. This is not one for your Mum.

There are different levels of progress and complexity that each person is happy with. Simply try a few distributions and find one you like.

People need to stop fighting between themselves and put their egos away. It's Microsoft and Apple's failures we need to capitalize on, not our own.

[Twitch6000]

Any Rolling release

[OutOfReach]

Arch definately.

[thisllub]

All you need to do is pacman -Syu to sync your repositories and update packages every few 1-2 days or so.


I usually do it just before the end of each billing month on my internet account.
Probably 20 times now with only one Xorg problem that was warned about before I started.
I followed the instructions and it was fixed in about 2 minutes.

[liamnixon]

God, I'm the worst about updating rolling-release distros (Gentoo, specifically). I just do it when I remember to (which is usually every few weeks or months). :)