Intel Laptop Users Should Avoid Linux 5.19.12 To Avoid Potentially Damaging The Display

[elatllat]

I have found ~5 bugs in 5.10.X LTS RCs; they are not well tested,

[Vistaus]

At some point, almost all bleeding-edge wannabes (read: beta testers) will get tired of ridiculous errors no one else have and get back to stable distros with tail tucked between their legs.

I actually went back to rolling releases as I did run into issues with so-called "stable" or "LTS" distros. Don't get me wrong: rolling releases are error-prone too, but at least I get updates faster to solve them. With stable/LTS, I couldn't get it solved because the updates I needed weren't coming.

And no, I did not mess up my system - I used pretty much all the defaults.

[Vistaus]

I have found ~5 bugs in 5.10.X LTS RCs; they are not well tested,

Shh, don't let the LTS lovers crew here you!

[HD7950]

I have found ~5 bugs in 5.10.X LTS RCs; they are not well tested,

And that is the uncomfortable truth that many do not want to accept. Linux is not stable due to the procedure used in releasing supposedly stable versions of the kernel. I have always thought that the most reliable versions of a kernel are the .0 ones. Maintaining 6 LTS versions is really stupid, a couple of them is enough, and please before applying a patch to a stable branch, make sure that it does not create new problems.

[Anux]

Blaming rolling release or stable distros doesn't help, one might be more prone to hazardous updates, but you can always be affected by bad luck. Windows has the exact same problem, they can't test every possible configuration. Even back in the days when they had a proper test team and all employees used the developement version as production system.
Heck even Apple with its small hardware selection had bad updates that bricked laptops.

There is simply no solution to the problem. You can't test everything.

If your'e money depends on it you should probably have a good recovery plan (called backup and spare hardware) that gets you to a working state in under 90 min. Relying on stable is just russian roulette, if you have a backup you can also use the most experimental bleeding edge you want, but stable should give you less downtime in general.

[berarma]

arch is a community based distribution with no company backing. and it is known for bleeding edge
*you* are the tester

I'm surprised at how many Arch users don't realize they're the testers for the rest of community.

[CochainComplex]

I'm surprised at how many Arch users don't realize they're the testers for the rest of community.

someone has to do it.

[CochainComplex]

35-352271_smug-saitama-smug-anime-face-know-your-meme.jpg

Me, using a LTS distro that other people call "obsolete crap", watching kids on the bleeding edge getting their papercuts...

Me compiling the latest kernels by myself watching people waiting for their releases

[MadCatX]

I'm surprised at how many Arch users don't realize they're the testers for the rest of community.

I'm quite sure that every Arch/Debian Unstable/Tumbleẃeed user realized that they are the first in line to run into bugs. That's part of the deal.

[sinepgib]

I'm quite sure that every Arch/Debian Unstable/Tumbleẃeed user realized that they are the first in line to run into bugs. That's part of the deal.

Not really. Many people expect a smooth ride. That's the real problem. As I said in my first post, it's layer 8. If you don't know you sign up for testing, then use a different distro. It doesn't help that most stable distros kinda suck and come with lousy defaults My main motivation to use Arch is that I end up having to undo a distro to configure it in a sane way, so I'd rather just do the second part only. I could like a stable one that is like that.