X.Org Server 1.20.7 Released With A Handful Of Fixes For GLAMOR + Modesetting

[Britoid]

For workstations working on long-term projects and various servers, LTS does make sense because a feature update could completely screw a company or person's workflow or you could be using BTRFS and the updated kernel isn't quite happy with your file system configuration so goodbye data. That's because stability in a lot of LTS's means that the platform won't have any drastic changes and is, therefore, stable; not stability as in bugs are less likely to occur so our platform is, therefore, stable.

That's why, IMHO and for the most part, LTS is long-term stale and not long-term stability. All one has to do is look at random Steam bug reports to find all the examples they'd need that LTS isn't good for the average desktop user or new Linux user. The amount of LTS distribution users that have bugs and the non-LTS users going XYZ fixed that 6 months or a year ago is, honestly, hilarious.

....unless we're talking about projects like KDE Plasma or the Linux kernel that have both LTS and Mainline releases. In cases like that we're actually getting a long-term supported project and not SUSE or Ubuntu or *insert distribution here's* rendition of an LTS project. I've seen both Ubuntu and SUSE feature freeze at utterly retarded times like not waiting a few more days and using a Linux LTS release for their LTS distribution....nope, we're gonna stick with the kernel release right before the LTS release and backport a bunch of shit because that makes a lot of fucking sense.

I don't use Nvidia. Fuck Nvidia.

AMD FTW

That's why when you see people go "ARCH IS STABLE IT NEVER CRASHES" you have to remind them that no, distro stability does not refer to crash rates.

[skeevy420]

That's why when you see people go "ARCH IS STABLE IT NEVER CRASHES" you have to remind them that no, distro stability does not refer to crash rates.

Anyone who says that probably reinstalls their Arch box every other week. In damn near 10 years I've never had Arch stay, well, stable for a lack of a better word, for more than six months without a reinstall being helpful.

There's a reason I switched from Arch to Manjaro and I can assure you it isn't because a 20 year Linux user needs Manjaro's noob helpers.

[Britoid]

Anyone who says that probably reinstalls their Arch box every other week. In damn near 10 years I've never had Arch stay, well, stable for a lack of a better word, for more than six months without a reinstall being helpful.

There's a reason I switched from Arch to Manjaro and I can assure you it isn't because a 20 year Linux user needs Manjaro's noob helpers.

Manjaro isn't stable either. Stable means "not moving", rolling means "always moving", freezing Arch for 2 weeks does not change anything (and is pointless if you ask me).

Noob helpers are stupid too, they shouldn't exist. If a noob helper is needed something has gone wrong, and often the noob helpers create more issues than they're worth.

I've personally had an Arch install that was installed over a year ago and is still fine to this day, Manjaro last time I tried broke after a week.

[skeevy420]

Manjaro isn't stable either. Stable means "not moving", rolling means "always moving", freezing Arch for 2 weeks does not change anything (and is pointless if you ask me).

Noob helpers are stupid too, they shouldn't exist. If a noob helper is needed something has gone wrong, and often the noob helpers create more issues than they're worth.

I've personally had an Arch install that was installed over a year ago and is still fine to this day, Manjaro last time I tried broke after a week.

You realize that a package manager is a noob helper, right? I guess apt shouldn't exist when we have "make && make install". Don't go full on absolute with noob helper hate.

Stable can be "not moving", "not having as many bugs", "moving with standards", and more. We can argue the semantics of stable vs stable all day long so lets just agree that we use stable with different meanings and not go here. I've had the stable vs stable argument a lot on Phoronix and don't feel like going there again (today) after this post.

For Manjaro, stability means: moving with standards.

For Ubuntu, stability means: not moving.

For Arch, stability means: cross your fucking fingers after you type 'sudo pacman -Syu'.

The problem with Arch users moving to Manjaro is they'll still do things the Arch Way instead of doing them the Manjaro Way. I know, I've had that one week crap effect me and it was because I didn't RTFM that Manjaro provided and was still doing things the way the Arch Wiki said to do them. It's like managing an Ubuntu system from Debian documentation -- most of the documentation will just work from Debian to Ubuntu, but Ubuntu does do some things differently than Debian and you can shoot yourself in the foot if you don't know about those differences. Arch and Manjaro are the same as Debian and Ubuntu in that regard.

[Britoid]

You realize that a package manager is a noob helper, right? I guess apt shouldn't exist when we have "make && make install". Don't go full on absolute with noob helper hate.

Stable can be "not moving", "not having as many bugs", "moving with standards", and more. We can argue the semantics of stable vs stable all day long so lets just agree that we use stable with different meanings and not go here. I've had the stable vs stable argument a lot on Phoronix and don't feel like going there again (today) after this post.

For Manjaro, stability means: moving with standards.

For Ubuntu, stability means: not moving.

For Arch, stability means: cross your fucking fingers after you type 'sudo pacman -Syu'.

The problem with Arch users moving to Manjaro is they'll still do things the Arch Way instead of doing them the Manjaro Way. I know, I've had that one week crap effect me and it was because I didn't RTFM that Manjaro provided and was still doing things the way the Arch Wiki said to do them. It's like managing an Ubuntu system from Debian documentation -- most of the documentation will just work from Debian to Ubuntu, but Ubuntu does do some things differently than Debian and you can shoot yourself in the foot if you don't know about those differences. Arch and Manjaro are the same as Debian and Ubuntu in that regard.

You can't start redefining words.

stable literally means not moving, firm, fixed.

99% of the work I do is inside containers, once the host OS is setup in a certain way I rarely touch it other than installing updates once a week.

[skeevy420]

You can't start redefining words.

stable literally means not moving, firm, fixed.

99% of the work I do is inside containers, once the host OS is setup in a certain way I rarely touch it other than installing updates once a week.

stable adjective
Definition of stable (Entry 3 of 3)


1a : firmly established : fixed, steadfast stable opinions
b : not changing or fluctuating : unvarying in stable condition
c : permanent, enduring stable civilizations

2a : steady in purpose : firm in resolution
b : not subject to insecurity or emotional illness : sane, rational a stable personality

3a(1) : placed so as to resist forces tending to cause motion or change of motion
(2) : designed so as to develop forces that restore the original condition when disturbed from a condition of equilibrium or steady motion

b(1) : not readily altering in chemical makeup or physical state stable emulsions
(2) : not spontaneously radioactive

I'm not changing the definition. I'm going with 2a. You are using 1a or 1b. We're both correct, asshole.

Or are we both changing the definitional since we're not talking about where to corral a horse. You know, like in a stable.

Basically, words can have more than one meaning.

[skeevy420]

Michael
Help, Help, I'm trying to win an argument.

[gedgon]

Anyone who says that probably reinstalls their Arch box every other week. In damn near 10 years I've never had Arch stay, well, stable for a lack of a better word, for more than six months without a reinstall being helpful.

There's a reason I switched from Arch to Manjaro and I can assure you it isn't because a 20 year Linux user needs Manjaro's noob helpers.

Dude, what a BS. I'm on Arch for more than 15 years, and I never, ever had to reinstall because I needed to. I have never experienced an issue with the distro itself that couldn't be fixed in less than 5 minutes (using chroot in the worst case scenario).

[skeevy420]

Dude, what a BS. I'm on Arch for more than 15 years, and I never, ever had to reinstall because I needed to. I never experienced an issue with the distro itself that couldn't be fixed in less than 5 minutes (using chroot in the worst case scenario).

I find it hard to believe you went through the systemd upbringing and the changing of init systems, the /usr merge, the introduction of multiple repositories like core and community, the introduction of stable and testing, the dropping of i686 and unstable, the picking up of 64-bit, and more...all completely unscathed. None of that ever caused you to be in a reinstall position? Not ever? That's very unlikely and improbable.

To be pedantic -- 15 years ago, Arch was a 32-bit only distribution. In April this year, 64-bit Arch will be 14 years old.

So, with that said, are you really telling me you started on a 32-bit Arch Linux and that same install, 15 years later, PC to PC, is still working and that, worst case scenario, all you've needed to do was a few chroot fixes? I'm usually a really trusting person and will take people and posts at face value, but I just cannot believe that not one time ever in 15 years that you never reinstalled Arch because you had to and that you only did it because you wanted to.

I don't care what OS you're using, using it for 15 years without some issue ever coming up that requires a reinstall sounds very unbelievable.

Are you combining need to's and want to's or that you didn't time your need to's with your want to's to coincide with one-another? I know that I combined them for the /usr merge and the introduction of stable and testing. That's reasonable, believable, and what a lot of Arch users do over the long term. I know that I'll also call that kind of a scenario "an update" even though it technically is a reinstall where I didn't wipe /home midway through....like those situations where you read the Arch News and know that your system will break following the next "pacman -Syu" and you can either spend an hour in a chroot to fix it or spend an hour doing a reinstall because either scenario will have the desired outcome...

[R41N3R]

The XWayland change sounds interesting, hope it fixes the graphical glitches when launching OpenGL/Vulkan apps/games.