On the RedHat side, RHEL and it's derivative CentOS are the stable systems. Both are targeted at Enterprise use where stability far outweighs updates. That said, RedHat does backport some new features and applications when there is sufficient demand in the enterprise space.
On the Debian side nothing is more stable that Debian Stable (Currently Squeeze released a few months ago). Ubuntu LTS releases are *supposed* to be stable but in practice the Debian upstream is more stable.
In either case, the system will only have a new release every couple years at most (sometimes 3-5 years go between stable releases of RHEL or Debian), so you *will* eventually encounter missing features and/or new applications that simply won't run on the stable distributions.
If stability is your primary consideration, I'd go with RHEL/CentOS or Debian Stable.
If you want a more simple/minimal desktop, then use a desktop based on XFCE or LXDE if you need compatibility.
If you just want the most minimal GUI possible, then something like JWM, WindowMaker, or similar minimalist GUI environments may work well for you.
The following are my general recommendations for stability vs. up-to-date, note that the complexity of these starts with "anyone can manage this", and ends with "expert-only/you'd better have lots of free time":
If you want a more balanced approach between stable and up-to-date, then Ubuntu LTS releases, some Fedora releases, and certain LinuxMint releases (the ones based off of stable or LTS releases) will likely fit the bill.
If you want new features and applications faster, but don't want to learn new desktop paradigms all the time and want something a smidge more tested, then consider a distribution based from Debian testing (such as the upcoming LinuxMint releases), a current Fedora release, or *most* Ubuntu releases (delay upgrade by a month or two and read the forum posts to see how stable it is).
If you want the most bleeding edge possible, then something from Debian Unstable (such as Sidux), some Ubuntu releases, a Fedora release candidate, or a Gentoo-type system may be for you.
If you want absolute control over what is updated and when, then you can install Debian Stable and run your own Debian package proxy mirror (and only bring in packages when you want them), install Fedora and your own Fedora package proxy mirror (same update policy), or use Gentoo and only emerge what you want and when you want (and handle the dependencies yourself).
If you want down-to-the-metal absolute control over every aspect of the system, build your own distribution per Linux From Scratch or something similar and build all applications from source (and handle all dependencies, build issues, etc. yourself).
On 07/28/2011 07:35 PM,
joe@actionline.com wrote:
>
> What would this esteemed forum's opinions suggest are the top 3 or 4 most
> stable (different) Linux distros for personal use (not as a server)?
>
> While it seems to have been almost universally the case that the hundreds
> of Linux distros are continually competing to be the latest and greatest,
> most advanced, cutting-edge systems -- continually being "updated" and
> made ever-more glitzy and fancy.
>
> However, are there any distros that strive instead to be rock-solid,
> stable, steady work-horses ... rarely (preferably never) requiring
> "updates" just to add in more and more of the latest new-fangled whatever?
>
> Personally, I have preferred distros based on Redhat rather than ubuntu
> (Mandrake/Mandriva and PCLinuxOS). I am interested *only* in a
> personal-use system mainly for work. And I have zero interest in games. I
> really liked the KDE 3.5 system, but I detest KDE 4+ with all of its
> nuisance "widgets" and clutter. And I don't care for Gnome.
>
> Ideally, I would like a system that is as concise and non-bloated as
> possible. Every time I have done an "update" on every system I have ever
> had, it has resulted in a lot of nuisance issues/problems that have wasted
> a lot of time trying to sort out all those issues so I could get back to
> work.
>
> While I realize that the usual reply to a question like this is that
> *every* system needs to be frequently "updated" for security reasons ...
> that seems to me to be a needless nuisance. I have several older systems
> that have run efficiently and reliably 24/7 for years and have *never*
> been updated ... and I have never had a problem with them. But they are
> now several years old and I would like to get something newer.
>
> What say you?
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list -
PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
(text/plain)
