I’ve been using linux desktop for a year or so now. One noteable thing i keep seeing is that one person will say I dont like XYZ distrobution because of its base. But I am still a little unsure what is meant by it. I am assuming the main difference between each base is the choice of package management(?). But what other factors/aspects that are important for the average user to know about each ‘base’? This is probably quite a broad question to a rather technical answer, but appriciate any answers, and i’ll try my best to understand and read up :)

    • bisby@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      You’re right. There are multiple definitions of the word stable, and “unchanging” is a valid one of them.

      It’s just that every where else I’ve seen it in computing, it refers to a build of something being not-crashy enough to actually ship. “Can’t be knocked over” sort of stability. And everyone I’ve ever talked to outside of Lemmy has assumed that was what “stable” meant to Debian. but it doesn’t. It just means “versions won’t change so you won’t have version compatibility issues, but you’ll also be left with several month to year old software that wasn’t even up to date when this version released, but at least you don’t have to think about the compatibility issues!”

      • Schwim Dandy@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        I agree. I used Debian for a very long time but found a move to Sid for fresh packages to be a frustrating experience so I just moved to an ubu based system.