Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15

Thread: Is LEAP more unstable than TUMBLEWEED?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    1,927

    Default Re: Is LEAP more unstable than TUMBLEWEED?

    I also use Leap as I don't like constant change and I think I'm pretty good with computers (at least I hope so). You have a point though that with Tumbleweed you never have to do a big distribution update (version switch in Leap terms) because you are constantly doing them with zypper dup. The problem with this as I've heard from Arch users is if you don't update with reasonable frequency your system drifts too far away from the upstream and another update doesn't work or breaks your system.
    With Leap you do a distribution update rarely but then there is a lot of packages to download and install so I guess you could say that is a bigger change on your system than constant incremental changes on Tumbleweed. Having said that standard updates on Leap (without version switch) are much smaller as others mentioned.
    Best regards,
    Greg

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Chicago suburbs
    Posts
    13,161
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default Re: Is LEAP more unstable than TUMBLEWEED?

    Quote Originally Posted by glistwan View Post
    The problem with this as I've heard from Arch users is if you don't update with reasonable frequency your system drifts too far away from the upstream and another update doesn't work or breaks your system.
    I don't think that's a real problem with Tumbleweed. I have noticed that when using other rolling distros (KaOS and Solus).

    Tumbleweed will remove out-of-date software.

    I do occasionally look for orphaned packages, and remove those unless a conflict prevents. And when a conflict blocks that, the issue usually goes away after a few more updates.

    It is also a good idea to occasionally run rpmconfigcheck and update any affected files. I'll admit to not always being sure what I am doing when I do that.
    openSUSE Leap 15.1; KDE Plasma 5;
    testing Leap 15.2Alpha

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Erlangen
    Posts
    1,177

    Default Re: Is LEAP more unstable than TUMBLEWEED?

    Quote Originally Posted by glistwan View Post
    The problem with this as I've heard from Arch users is if you don't update with reasonable frequency your system drifts too far away from the upstream and another update doesn't work or breaks your system.

    With Leap you do a distribution update rarely but then there is a lot of packages to download and install so I guess you could say that is a bigger change on your system than constant incremental changes on Tumbleweed. Having said that standard updates on Leap (without version switch) are much smaller as others mentioned.
    I have 2 pretty identical machines running Tumbleweed:
    • the i7-6700K gets virtually every update
    • the i3-4130 gets quarterly updates
    No adverse effects were observed on the latter during a 3 year period. Size of downloads doesn't matter, since even with the i7-6700K, it amounts to a small fraction of total downloads.
    AMD Athlon 4850e (2009), openSUSE 13.1, KDE 4, Intel i3-4130 (2014), i7-6700K (2016), i5-8250U (2018), openSUSE Tumbleweed, KDE Plasma 5

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    1,927

    Default Re: Is LEAP more unstable than TUMBLEWEED?

    Quote Originally Posted by nrickert View Post
    I don't think that's a real problem with Tumbleweed. I have noticed that when using other rolling distros (KaOS and Solus).

    Tumbleweed will remove out-of-date software.

    I do occasionally look for orphaned packages, and remove those unless a conflict prevents. And when a conflict blocks that, the issue usually goes away after a few more updates.

    It is also a good idea to occasionally run rpmconfigcheck and update any affected files. I'll admit to not always being sure what I am doing when I do that.
    That's great to know.
    Best regards,
    Greg

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    Cape May, NJ
    Posts
    64

    Default Re: Is LEAP more unstable than TUMBLEWEED?

    Quote Originally Posted by glistwan View Post
    I also use Leap as I don't like constant change and I think I'm pretty good with computers (at least I hope so). You have a point though that with Tumbleweed you never have to do a big distribution update (version switch in Leap terms) because you are constantly doing them with zypper dup. The problem with this as I've heard from Arch users is if you don't update with reasonable frequency your system drifts too far away from the upstream and another update doesn't work or breaks your system.
    With Leap you do a distribution update rarely but then there is a lot of packages to download and install so I guess you could say that is a bigger change on your system than constant incremental changes on Tumbleweed. Having said that standard updates on Leap (without version switch) are much smaller as others mentioned.
    Like debian (and unlike redhat) Suse does abi package naming, and this is why it is easier to reliably and constantly update Tumbleweed (and Debian testing) in place even with extended time gaps. Arch only does abi naming for glibc/core libs so that at least pacman is stable during the upgrade process. This lack of abi naming is why Redhat and Fedora was so hard to upgrade in place, and why Fedora had to settle on a method involving a boot to install upgrades to finally get it reliable. I also do feel more comfortable and confident rolling with a Debian Testing or Tumbleweed than with arch.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •