Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OpenSUSE Tumbleweed Users Will Soon Get GNOME 3.20

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • OpenSUSE Tumbleweed Users Will Soon Get GNOME 3.20

    Phoronix: OpenSUSE Tumbleweed Users Will Soon Get GNOME 3.20

    Users of OpenSUSE's Tumbleweed rolling-release Linux distribution will soon have access to GNOME 3.20...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...or-SUSE-Tumble

  • #2
    For Arch users is soo like a week ago

    gnome-unstable repo have full 3.20 already if anyone want to know

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by jrch2k8 View Post
      For Arch users is soo like a week ago

      gnome-unstable repo have full 3.20 already if anyone want to know
      Announcement is about availability in the final stable repository, not in devel/testing/unstable branch.
      Tumbleweed users have option to test latest Gnome version in GNOME:Next repository all the time

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by jrch2k8 View Post
        For Arch users is soo like a week ago

        gnome-unstable repo have full 3.20 already if anyone want to know
        who still thinks that Arch is faster than Tumbleweed should read this from the openSUSE Chairman:
        http://rootco.de/2016-03-28-why-use-tumbleweed/

        In short: If Arch is faster sometimes, thats because they do not test that much. But most of the time Tumbleweed is even faster than Arch despite all the testing, because the testing is automated (thanks openQA), same for the build process (thanks OBS)

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by tomtomme View Post

          who still thinks that Arch is faster than Tumbleweed should read this from the openSUSE Chairman:
          http://rootco.de/2016-03-28-why-use-tumbleweed/

          In short: If Arch is faster sometimes, thats because they do not test that much. But most of the time Tumbleweed is even faster than Arch despite all the testing, because the testing is automated (thanks openQA), same for the build process (thanks OBS)
          that is bullshit(except openQA/OBS), my arch is so bleeding edge that probably arch maintainers will not considerate it safe (X86_64 and ARMv8 variants) and i have at least 5 years(when i switched to arch) without a single issue, actually in the last 3 years i've only resintalled ArchLinux in a couple of servers where the hard drives actually blow up.

          Right now, i have around 26 machines with Archlinux where 22 run arch since at least 3 years ago(never reinstalled once btw) from Old santa rosa Opterons to ivy bridge xeons(heavily virtualized all of them with Xen and KVM all with ZFS raid 10/6 volumes).

          my 2 personal PCs (haswell xeon and AMD FX 6100) actually use automated (handcrafted and with optimized flags tho) pkgbuilds to recompile the entire graphic stack 3 times a day(i use RadeonSI so i like to stay really close to git) and even so, neither have ever failed me except when the git is broken(outside the OS responsability) and thats nothing that a couple of pacman lines can't solve in few seconds.

          Aditionally i administer around 120 arch based VPS for some cloud services my company offers and so far 1 year has passed with 0% downtime, except the regular postgresql clusters upgrades(i use automated pacman upgrades and bittorrent sync with auto reboot with systemd at 12pm every day)(i use different providers too btw)

          So, im not saying tumbleweed is better or worse but that article is more some sales pitch on OBS/OpenQA that fact based, if that were true statically speaking i should have at least some % of fail rate since i have so many installations with so many different scenarios running(i can accept i have good luck argument but still).

          True tumbleweed could be simpler and even faster sometimes(specially in popular packages) but ArchLinux(tumbleweed i don't have the experience but i assume is bullet proof too) is bullet proof as far as i'm concerned in my tests and years of experience, the only thing about arch is that one should check www.archlinux.org at least once a month(or when something big changes like systemd/sysv migration) to be aware of any fix needing manual intervention.(not sure how tumbleweed react to those)

          Another thing is support, Arch probably have the most actual badass Wiki/support forum in existence(this is subjective of course)

          Personally i've used Redhat/Suse/debian for a long long time and after trying pacman i can't tolerate deb/rpm packages anymore and i have to admit PKGBUILD killed my love for Gentoo ebuilds too(same power but way easier and predictable)

          Comment


          • #6
            Going to switch back to Arch this week. I was thinking about Tumbleweed but it's still not quite where I'd like it yet. That said, it should only be another 6-12 months until it is assuming it continues with the increase in maintainers (official and non-official OBS) and infrastructure improvements.

            For what it's worth, the differences that decided Arch > Tumbleweed for me were:
            OBS web UI is clunky and annoying to navigate
            AUR has more well maintained packages than OBS
            Arch is a bit like canonical and has/enables/doesn't disable as many packages or features from packages due to patents
            Tumbleweed tends to stay on the stable branch of things for a while and hold back library updates due to packages that would break due to API changes, etc. while Arch updates to latest major release of packages and libraries and if a package would break due to API changes, they patch the packages themselves rather than wait for upstream. (This is purely based on what I've noticed between Tumbleweed and Arch repositories. YMMV depending on package/maintainers)

            For those that know I maintain a somewhat popular mesa copr repository for Fedora: I plan on setting up a VM and maintaining the packages for F23-F24 until F25 is released. The packages have been in a somewhat maintenance mode for a couple months already. <-- By that I mean I simply wait for upstream if something breaks and I'm a bit slower at following upstream changes.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by jrch2k8 View Post

              that is bullshit(except openQA/OBS), my arch is so bleeding edge that probably arch maintainers will not considerate it safe (X86_64 and ARMv8 variants) and i have at least 5 years(when i switched to arch) without a single issue, actually in the last 3 years i've only resintalled ArchLinux in a couple of servers where the hard drives actually blow up.
              Even OpenQA is not unique to openSUSE. Fedora is using it extensively as well these days. I do think Arch should consider using it as well.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post

                Even OpenQA is not unique to openSUSE. Fedora is using it extensively as well these days. I do think Arch should consider using it as well.
                yeah sure, thats what opensource is for . however suse invented it and might have a lead because they use it extensively since a year while fedora just jumped on board.

                Comment

                Working...
                X