Most Stable Linux Distro?

[KOTAPAKA]

Hello I am wondering which is currently the most stable linux distro? I think it is Debian, ain't it? And what does r3 r2 and all those R's stand for on debian distroes?

[pedro_orange]

Stable in what way?
Everyone will have their own opinions.

But it mostly comes down to how you configure your system.

I think thats a question for google really.

[tastefulasever]

Probably Slackware.. but if you're new to Linux, that could be quite the crash course compared to Ubuntu.

[NightwishFan]

Stability as in slightly outdated but lessy buggy correct? I have not tried these but I have heard Slackware and Debian are stable.

[KOTAPAKA]

Well stable as in not getting hardware errors and things like that and not getting errors with utilities and applications i.e. bugs

PS what about Slack and OpenSUSE. I am not going to transfer from Ubuntu - I am just wondering which one is the most stable.

[LaRoza]

It depends on several factors, including the hardware you have, the software and the entire system's configuration.

The best way to keep a system stable, IMO, is to not mess with it once it is working. Not running beta software and testing software is a good way to keep the system stable as well.

(Moved to Cafe)

[cykotiktek]

i use suse and ubuntu

ubuntu has much better support personally here at work due to the hardware limitations i run xubuntu on everything.

The support is what makes me not even bother looking at another distro.

[NightwishFan]

If you wish to try another distro go with Puppy Linux. I got it running on my old 128mb pc meant for Windows Me. It is pretty full featured out of the box.

[angryfirelord]

If you mean "Stable" as in "Stable enough for the desktop user", then pretty much any distro that doesn't use bleeding edge packages will suite you fine, which includes Ubuntu, openSuSE, Slackware, Debian Testing, etc. If you mean "Stable as in a rock", than that category goes to Debian Stable and CentOS.

The R's on the Debian Stable releases is just the Stable release with the security updates applied. Over time, packages are found to have security vulnerabilities and these updates accumulate over time. If an administrator or user wants to deploy Debian Stable, then having these re-releases saves on bandwidth because now that user doesn't have to download as many updates.

[SupaSonic]

Debian Stable is in fact stable.

[PurposeOfReason]

Well Debian Stable has stable in the name and really is rock solid. However, you can make any system stable by choosing what you run and not going on "ambitious" projects on a whim.

[roaldz]

In my biased opinion: Ubuntu, offcourse..:)

[deepclutch]

Debian Stable followed by RHEL5 :)
RHEL is easy as it bundles system-config-* tools for various networking and server management.while Debian,will prolly need editing of few config files manually :p

PS:I am a primary Debian Sid user ;)

[Ebuntor]

It depends on several factors, including the hardware you have, the software and the entire system's configuration.
(Moved to Cafe)

I'm curious, how can the hardware influence the (stability of the) operating system? I understand a beta driver for example could crash the system but once the OS is successfully installed, no matter what your hardware is, it shouldn't matter, right?

[LaRoza]

I'm curious, how can the hardware influence the (stability of the) operating system? I understand a beta driver for example could crash the system but once the OS is successfully installed, no matter what your hardware is, it shouldn't matter, right?

Try usng Debian Stable on a new laptop.

One has to take into consideration the age of the software and its purpose. It would make little sense to try to run Ubuntu 7.10 on a C64, but in the same light, it would be equally futile to try to use MS-DOS on a new laptop. (Extreme examples)

Many people have problems with Ubuntu 7.10 on computers that run XP "just fine". XP is 7 years old. The computers that run it often have 256 MB of RAM. Of course a modern operating system will not run smoothly on old hardware (but it can). Also, the same version of XP would not run on a new computer, as XP has very little built in support for basic hardware, including hard drives.

[roaldz]

I'm curious, how can the hardware influence the (stability of the) operating system? I understand a beta driver for example could crash the system but once the OS is successfully installed, no matter what your hardware is, it shouldn't matter, right?

No, that´s why there´s a difference between high-end server hardware and low-end (but maybe equally fast) consumer hardware.

Roald

[original_jamingrit]

For general purposes, server or desktop, high end or low end, Slackware is probably the most stable. Their two main objectives are stability and being the most Unix-like linux distro. The tricky part is getting configured the way you want it. Maybe "tricky" is not the right word, but it does take some extra work if you want something different than a basic kde or xfce DE.

But I agree with what mostly everyone said, any release marked stable tends to be so, as long as you don't install any bleeding edge software. But then, where's the fun in that?

[tcpip4lyfe]

Slackware is insanely stable but the lack of a decent package manager brought me to ubuntu.

[Samueltehg33k]

try gentoo :lolflag:

[spupy]

try gentoo :lolflag:

I haven't given this any thoughts when i used Ubuntu. Debian Testing was stable enough for me. If Ubuntu was any less stable, it must have been because then i was still using some bloatware.

Right now I'm using Gentoo. Uptime is 25 days. I only kill X from time to time to free some memory; same with Firefox. In my opinion Gentoo is more stable than Debian Testing, can't say about Stable.

About the hardware question: unfortunately for me, the only thing that prevents me from going 100% uptime and super stable on any distro is my touchpad - all distros get crushed by my touchpad in mere minutes. I guess I'm a single case, but it's sad i can't use my touchpad.

Btw, what do you mean by stability? The stability of the kernel, of the separate programs, or the whole OS?

[angryfirelord]

Right now I'm using Gentoo. Uptime is 25 days. I only kill X from time to time to free some memory; same with Firefox. In my opinion Gentoo is more stable than Debian Testing, can't say about Stable.

I think that depends more on the administrator's knowledge. I've used Debian Testing for a little bit and I've never encountered a stability issue. With Gentoo, unless you read closely about the updates and apply them regularly, you won't have a stable system if you update blindly. Of course, I don't use Gentoo, so use some salt. ;)

[Mithrilhall]

When one asks of stability Debian comes to mind for me. I've had good experiences with CentOS as well but Debian is always my first choice.

And I wouldn't consider Ubuntu stable. Stable enough for most users, sure but I've had problems with it before.

[SunnyRabbiera]

A toss up between Slackware and Debian, both are well known for their reliability.
Gentoos pretty solid too

[deepclutch]

well....pss..gentoo? got some problem with their administration thingy eh?I read in desktoplinux.com I think ;)

[aBitLater]

If you mean "Stable" as in "Stable enough for the desktop user", then pretty much any distro that doesn't use bleeding edge packages will suite you fine, which includes Ubuntu, openSuSE, Slackware, Debian Testing, etc.

I know this is old, but I'm currently exploring the same question. I have to disagree (politely) with the statement above. My Ubuntu 8.10 has all sorts of problems, just that they mostly go un-noticed.

Pulse Audio breaks and/or is buggy
gnome session manager breaks
nvidia freaks out
compiz is the buggiest piece of $#!% on the planet
dbus has issues

It is VERY frustrating to research the errors I see in syslog and find that these errors have existed for quite a long time in launchpad, across multiple releases.

My feeling is that Ubuntu releases never get a chance to mature. (except perhaps the longer term releases, of which I think Hardy Herron is one, but I suppose the errors I'm seeing in Intrepid are not fixed on Hardy Herron either.)

[chucky chuckaluck]

i've had very little trou ble with arch, but i have a minimum setup (less installed, less to go wrong).

[jrusso2]

Slackware, Debian and Arch are usually very stable distros.

[chucky chuckaluck]

i wonder which is the most unstable distro (not that there's anything wrong with that...).

[jrusso2]

i wonder which is the most unstable distro (not that there's anything wrong with that...).

Fedora IMHO.

[spupy]

A stable installation is one that isn't updated often once everything is set up and running.

[jrusso2]

A stable installation is one that isn't updated often once everything is set up and running.

Too bad they keep finding those security issues that require upgrades. You are fixing those aren't you?

[dburnett77]

Currently, pre-compiled kernels downloaded are not very stable.

Compiling the original kernel code is safest, as it generates machine specific code.

They're are tools for doing this, and it is somewhat complicated. Do NOT use a generated script.

Compilation allows for 'hacking' which is not necessarily bad. Back-generation is a good way to go for those not wanting to invest lots of time. Where you use a distro, and recompile the kernel. Then, piece-wise, the apps. you want.

As far as LiveCD's, there not very stable, with patches typically taking more time to install than the original install.

[Rokurosv]

I think Debian stable, Slackware and CentOS are stable

[Enav]

Stable in what way?
Everyone will have their own opinions.

But it mostly comes down to how you configure your system.

I think thats a question for google really.

LoL we are google data source

[dragos240]

Gentoo, once it's set up :D

[dragos240]

Fedora IMHO.

I concur. Keeps breaking on me.

[kevCast]

Gentoo, once it's set up :D

I disagree.

[Ewingo401]

That's twice now this thread has been raised from the dead. My vote goes to Debian stable.

[dragos240]

I disagree.

Bad experience kev?

[k64]

If you mean "stable as in hardware and media codec support" I'd say Mint. It and Ubuntu are about the same, except that Mint includes the restricted drivers and media codecs prepackaged.

[Simian Man]

If you mean "stable as in hardware and media codec support" I'd say Mint.

How is that a valid definition of stable??

I'd go for CentOS if I wanted stability.

[L4U]

Are any of the major Distros unstable?

I always thought it was apps that are unstable. Some video editors still crash/freeze on me and Firefox has been buggy for a while now.

I'm not sure what you can do to test a Distro's stability without running any apps.

I guess some hardware issues can make a Distro unstable, but that seems to be the particular computer's fault rather than the Distros.

Maybe the question should be which Distro is the most stable on the most different kinds of computers?

[_H3MLOCK]

It basically burns down to what you want stability for... personally I like BSD better than linux (I smell hatemail already), but if you want all-round, then CentOS is server oriented and thus designed to be very stable... Slackware is extremely stable considering all updates are published by a single person. Gentoo is more optimized for performance compiling the entire OS which optimizes it for your computer. Debian is pretty stable too. Now all these references are supposed to be stability trends with new releases. Normally if your paranoid about stability then going backward onto a previous version of any distro will get you stability.

[siimo]

UBUNTU LTS is right up there with the best

[Warpnow]

Any distribution running from a Live CD so the user can't mess it up.

[Grifulkin]

CentOS

[xuCGC002]

If you mean "stable as in hardware and media codec support" I'd say Mint.

He means stability in a production environment. I don't think an unstable distro based on an unstable distro based on an unstable distro is that stable.

I'd choose Debian, but from what I hear, CentOS might be a better option.

[Techsnap]

RHEL/CentOS.

[woodmaster]

Thus far for me, I have found Ubuntu(standard install right oob and any and all modifications I have made trying to fix it) very Unstable. Still looking for something stable. Gonna Try OpenSuse, Fedora, Pardus, and Lenny. I get random freezes in Ubuntu that just make it only slightly better than the Vista my PC came with. I have yet to get any helpful advice on this despite how great everyone says the community is here. I'm sure some people can us Butnu no problems, but I don't think my PC will work with it.

[markp1989]

i havnt read the entire thread, but what i have read didnt mention ubuntu lts so im mentioning it :P

[szymon_g]

CentOS

[YeOK]

I'd have to say CentOS.

[gnomeuser]

I think Novell's SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop deserves a mention it's a very good effort. CentOS is also very stable.

Neither is terribly current and the communities surrounding them aren't that big and supportive meaning you have to rely on doing it yourself (CentOS) or paying for support (SLED).

Ubuntu LTS doesn't really have as long a track record delivering on a solid supported offering as I would like to see. The community is there but often tends to push towards the non-LTS releases and not offering packages and PPA builds for the LTS releases during the majority of their life time.

[Techsnap]

Yeah SLED Is pretty damn stable, I tried a 60 day trial of SLED and was impressed.

[szymon_g]

Yeah SLED Is pretty damn stable, I tried a 60 day trial of SLED and was impressed.

well... i've been also impressed, but, unfortunatelly, it doesn't have big repositories, which is a big minus for me. sure, i know, i can always compile it by myself, but it's not the same :/

but i like opensuse :) (shame it has short time support, only 18 months /afaik/ :|)

[Techsnap]

shame it has short time support, only 18 months

It never used to but it seems to be going that way with 11.2

OpenSUSE 11.0 comes out of support in June this year.

OpenSUSE 11.1 come out of on December 31st that's just a little over two years.

OpenSUSE 11.2 comes out of support May 11th 2011

[~sHyLoCk~]

Stable for /home use - Any distro as long as you know a little about Linux.

Stable for corporate use - CentOs, RH

[samjh]

Well stable as in not getting hardware errors and things like that and not getting errors with utilities and applications i.e. bugs

According to the IAPS Server OS Reliability Survey (http://www.iaps.com/exc/yankee-group-2007-2008-server-reliability.pdf), Red Hat and Novell/Suse make the most reliable Linux server distros, followed by Ubuntu, then Debian.

Community folklore is that Debian (Stable release) and Slackware are the most reliable distros.

Keep in mind that reliability is greatly influenced by the competence of the system administrator and the unique configuration of each installation. Nowhere is this more evident than the wildly differing opinions people have of Gentoo/Arch/Slackware/Fedora/Ubuntu's stability.

[snowpine]

I am about 1 week into my CentOS experiment. I've always heard it was a great server distro, but wanted to see what it was like as an everyday desktop OS, so I installed it to my Dell Mini (my primary web-surfing on the couch computer). For someone whose first exposure to Linux was Ubuntu, I have to say it is a revelation... whereas Ubuntu is supported only 18 months, RHEL/CentOS is supported for something ridiculous like 7 years. If that's not "stability," what is? :)

[~sHyLoCk~]

PLus no system freezes, no weird X lock up, flickering,etc. CentOS is rock solid and has never let me down.

[Techsnap]

CentOS Is absolutely brilliant. Though you will have to enable one or two third party repos if you want to use it on a home desktop. Stuff like codecs and newer applications.

But then again CentOS isn't particularly intended for most users definition of desktop use.

[snowpine]

I haven't really added any repositories (except Adobe Flash) or newer applications on my CentOS install. FF3.0 is a little older than the current version, true, but it works fine for every site I routinely visit (and I'm confident the Upstream Vendor is applying appropriate security patches). My philosophy is, if I wanted the latest apps, I would just use a newer distro (and indeed, I use Fedora 12 on my main desktop... unstable as can be, but that's another thread). :)