Linux too fragile, coming home to Solarish again. Linux ZFS problematic.
Solaris / OpenSolarisThis forum is for the discussion of Solaris, OpenSolaris, OpenIndiana, and illumos.
General Sun, SunOS and Sparc related questions also go here. Any Solaris fork or distribution is welcome.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
But why would you even need a graphical desktop on a server?
I dont know why?
But the thing is, people say that Linux is used by large companies to power their backend - Google, FB, etc. And therefore Linux is stable.
But as I said, that is not true. Linux is used as servers but just a minimal installation on standardized server grade hardware. They would never use Linux desktop for powering their backend. It is a carefully tested minimal installation they use. No GUI, no nothing.
I worked at a large financial company and their backend was powered by a minimal RedHat distro. No gui of course.
The Google developers also use Linux, but Google has created it's own Linux distro. I dont know why.
I hope one of those options works out for you, and I would be curious to hear back from you if you get what you like with one of them, so please let us know how it goes.
I agree with others here that this part of your thread title, “Linux is too fragile”, is misleading as a broad statement - and that is how you wrote it - but I wouldn’t argue that a statement like “Ubuntu has been too fragile for me” isn’t true, because how fragile is too fragile is a very individual thing, a value judgement rather than a statement of fact, based on your personal experience (regardless of the reasons for that experience of fragility)
Maybe Ubuntu has been so fragile for you that *nobody* would put up with it. Maybe every Linux would be. There’s no way for us to know if that’s so, or why. Several posters have made suggestions to help you, but you still don’t have what you’re looking for.
So I’m going to take a crack at this from another angle.
On rereading the posts, it seems to me that what you’re looking for is something that you’re at least a bit familiar with, that installs easily and runs with minimum fuss - you want to get on with your work and spend a minimum of time on system administration. That is not a criticism, in case someone might take it that way.
Assuming you don’t have hardware that just doesn’t play well with Linux (I did run into this once), and that your hardware isn’t failing or defective, the only thing I can suggest is distrohopping (or OS hopping) if the options you said you would try don’t work for you, until you find something that does.
I suspect it won’t be less work at the start to search for the “right” distro/OS than learning how to wrestle into submission what you already have, but once you find the right one, I expect you could settle into it with minimum system admin, at least until the distro/OS developers and maintainers do something you can’t tolerate, or stop maintaining it.
With no experience with ZFS, I don’t know if you can have the “right” OS *and* ZFS. That might be over specifying.
And if that doesn’t do it for you, then I don’t know if there is any solution that you will ever be satisfied with.
TKS
Yes, that is correct. I want the OS to just run and let me work, instead of spending valuable time fixing all problems. And if there are frequent problems, that is a big problem. Every hour spent on fixing problems are one hour less on working. I dont have that time. I need a working environment.
I would like to know how you get a stable Linux install. If I knew, I would use that Linux distro. However, I have some requirements of course (it is easy to get a stable Win95 installation if you never install anything and do not allow any software to be used).
- I dont want an ancient Linux distro
- I want to be able to install the newest software without breaking stuff
- I want the distro to be stable on server grade hardware: Xeon cpus, ECC RAM, etc
- If there are problematic updates - that is not a problem as long it is easy to rollback the update.
LTS distros are stable as long as you only use the software in their repos. If you install new software, then you often need to update a library, which breaks other software so you need to update them as well, and their libraries. This triggers a cascade of updates so at the end you have left the stable LTS distro, and run bleeding edge distro. This is a common complaint to LTS distros. When you install a new software, you are smoked. So LTS only works if you are frozen in time and never install new software.
But I will try out Debian Stable on bare metal for a while. If it fulfills all my requirements above, I am willing to use it as my main work OS. Maybe I should run Debian Stable in a VM, with Solaris as a backend? VirtualBox does have standardised hardware that Debian Stable works well with - I presume. And if a Debian Stable update breaks, then it easy to rollback (if I have ZFS snaphots of the VM, or use VirtualBox snapshots). Then my environment is never down, and I can always work.
Thanx for your advice and help, guys. I will abandon Ubuntu, and go to Debian Stable instead.
- I want to be able to install the newest software without breaking stuff
...
- If there are problematic updates - that is not a problem as long it is easy to rollback the update.
...
LTS distros are stable as long as you only use the software in their repos. If you install new software, then you often need to update a library, which breaks other software so you need to update them as well, and their libraries. This triggers a cascade of updates so at the end you have left the stable LTS distro, and run bleeding edge distro. This is a common complaint to LTS distros. When you install a new software, you are smoked. So LTS only works if you are frozen in time and never install new software.
One other option: AppImage or other portable packages like 0install. It’s possible to use newer software on stable / LTS distros without library conflicts. It’s not actually installed - the whole package is a single executable. You can have more than one version saved on your drive, so if an updated version doesn’t work, you close it and and just click on the executable of the latest version that worked. Of course there are disadvantages: a limited number of packages, larger package size, appearance may not integrate well with your desktop. The last I looked, almost none was self-updating, but they were working on that option. There are probably others.
Flatpak and Snap are two others that you could look at, each with advantages and disadvantages, but I don’t know if you can roll back package versions.
Like distrohopping, it would take a bit of learning at the start to learn the ins and outs, but then you settle in
Excuse me, now I know that you don't know what you are talking about, and you are making things up. That's silly.
Quote:
I want to be able to install the newest software without breaking stuff
Use your package manager. So that everything matches.
Quote:
If you install new software, then you often need to update a library, which breaks other software so you need to update them as well, and their libraries
That's what package managers are for. Stop partially updating your machines with a mix match of software.
Quote:
When you install a new software, you are smoked.
Use your package manager, install from the distros repo. I use arch, perhaps the worst that there is for "stability". And none of that which you speak ever happens. But I don't try and install mixed software willy nilly on the machine.
Or if you want to do that, install all of it in it's own dir in home, all libraries, all executables, and don't corrupt your file tree.
Linux should not be administered like a windows machine. Windows could have 10 copies of the same library on the machine. Each program has all of it's own libraries. Big waste of space. Linux will have one copy of XXXX.so and everything will need to match it.
A fully functioning install of Arch is less that 1GB. Then when you start adding Gtk, Qt, Tcl, X, it starts getting bigger.
Quote:
I would like to know how you get a stable Linux install
Excuse me, now I know that you don't know what you are talking about, and you are making things up. That's silly.
Use your package manager, install from the distros repo. I use arch, perhaps the worst that there is for "stability". And none of that which you speak ever happens. But I don't try and installed mixed software willy nilly on the machine.
Or if you want to do that, install all of it in it's own dir in home, all libraries, all executables, and don't corrupt your file tree.
Linux should not be administered like a windows machine. Windows could have 10 copies of the same library on the machine. Each program has all of it's own libraries. Big waste of space. Linux will have one copy of XXXX.so and everything will need to match it.
A fully functioning install of Arch is less that 1GB. Then when you start adding Gtk, Qt, Tcl, X, it starts getting bigger.
Install one and don't mess it all up.
It is easy to get W95 to be stable. Here is how: install W95 and nothing else. Boot it up. Dont run any software, just let W95 to sit there. It will not crash for years. So you can get any OS stable, just dont run anything on it.
But that is not an interesting OS. You want to be able to use it for work, and run any software you need to run.
You are saying that if I want to get Linux stable, I should only use the software in it's repo. Never install anything else. Well, that defeats the purpose of one the requirement that I have. I want to be able to install new software without fear of breaking things. That does sound like fragile to me: "only run these software that we have accepted, if you run other software then your environment might be stable". Not robust at all. Imagine if you only could run the software that Microsoft accepted - people would say that Windows is fragile. As a user you need to be able to do whatever your work requires. Computational fluid dynamics, MCMC, gaming, word processing etc. You choose, and the OS should be stable enough to allow you to work with whatever your work is.
Of course. Or if it's something that's not in the repo, you need to build it correctly for your machine, against the libraries on your machine, and install it with your package manager.
Quote:
I want to be able to install new software without fear of breaking things.
If it isn't in the repos...
1. Look for something else that does the same thing. For example: How many different terminal emulators are there? Or how many different web browsers are there? If Firefox does not work...there are about 20 more that you could use. Or...make your own web browser, python-pyqt5, python-gobject, ruby etc.
2. If you build your own software then you are responsible for it. You are the maintainer. Build it how you wish and make it work. Or, if you don't have the understanding how to do that yet, then you will have to use what's in the repo. So, if it's unstable...look in the mirror.
If you like windows then use windows. There is no crime in that. You can bet that on a Linux forum, people like Linux.
I know good and well that it works good. I've been using it for about 17 years now I think.
Of course. Or if it's something that's not in the repo, you need to build it correctly for your machine, against the libraries on your machine, and install it with your package manager.
The only way to get a stable Linux environment is to build everything yourself? So let me summarize how to get a stable Linux environment:
- Dont install any other binary packages than in the repo
- If you want to install other software, then you need to recompile it yourself instead of using binary packages
If I follow these rules, then Linux will be stable?
How about all updates that the distro pushes out, should I reject them in general? Never accept any update?
I don't know why you are having such a hard time with this.
Update your machine, the flavor of linux that you are using, with your distros package manager, from your distros official repositories.
The packages will usually be signed, so you can be assured that you are getting non tampered with software, and that it will work with all of the other software on your machine.
Quote:
Dont install any other binary packages than in the repo
That's a good idea. You can't see what is in a binary package. How do you know if it will do you any harm?
Quote:
If you want to install other software, then you need to recompile it yourself instead of using binary packages
Does that binary package that you got from somewhere, match all of the libraries on your machine? Or does it add/overwrite a library that will mess up other software on your machine? Was it compiled in a clean chroot environment? It's a binary, how was it compiled, with what flags, is there documentation for it etc? What kind of bugs will it introduce? Is there a bug report list for it, and what is being done to fix it, what patches are needed. What kernel was if compiles for?
Thank you Linux distribution developers for taking care of all of this so that I can sit on my backside, issue one command, and update the whole machine.
Then, the kernel is always changing, software developers are constantly adding new features, and that introduces unforeseen bugs. Fixing bugs is a constant process.
If you compile/install/develope the software yourself, outside of your distros repo/package manager, then you are the developer and you are responsible for it. If it's unstable, then fix it developer.
How about all updates that the distro pushes out, should I reject them in general? Never accept any update?
If they are official distro updates, they shouldn't do any harm to your system. What does harm and makes a system unstable is mixing software from different sources. My rules would be:
1) Use your package manager whenever possible. If the software is available by that route, install it by that route.
2) Use only the official repositories, which are enabled by default. Don't add extra repos to your package manager's configuration files. They may contain incompatible versions of libraries.
3) If it isn't available from the repos, download source code and build the program locally. That way it will be built against your local libraries and will be compatible with them. But in that case, you become responsible for updating it.
4) Don't install binaries from websites unless they are designed to install in a sandbox. This is the case for some packages like firefox and virtualbox and for some formats like appimage.
Ok, great information! Thanx a lot! I did not know these rules. I used Linux as I used all other OSes like windows and Solaris: I installed all binary files I wanted, without worrying. I should be much more careful with Linux apparently and not do anything wild, like installing any binaries I wanted like in Windows. In Windows I install any binary I want: Spotify, 7z, Torrent, etc.
Regarding the updates, they have caused me massive problems. I think I will be very restrictive with accepting updates. I will try these rules you wrote and be very careful with my Debian Stable. But this rules out Spotify, netflix, etc. I need to run these software in VM maybe, or on my mobile. Thanx again guys!
(If you come up with another rule for keeping Linux stable, please write it here so I can stabilize my work environment)
Because I got so much help from you guys, I want to share this link. For future reference, if someone has the same problems as me with Linux getting unstable, read this! https://wiki.debian.org/DontBreakDebian
Aha, cool! I did not know of Appimage et al! That sounds like a cool technology. I will check that up. Thanx for your help!
Oh, another one fell into that trap.
"Since Linux software installation works so differently from what I'm used to, and I simply cannot wrap my brain around it, I'm going to choose the one thing that reminds me of Windows software installation!"
We look forward to your "why doesn't this Appimage-installed software work like normal software" or "why is Appimage installation so complicated" threads.
"Since Linux software installation works so differently from what I'm used to, and I simply cannot wrap my brain around it, I'm going to choose the one thing that reminds me of Windows software installation!"
We look forward to your "why doesn't this Appimage-installed software work like normal software" or "why is Appimage installation so complicated" threads.
Ok, so are you saying that Appimage does not make my Linux environment more stable? Should I avoid Appimage if I care about stability?
Can I ask what softwares that you are wanting/needing to use that isn't in your distros repos?
I understand that if someone needs to to use Adobe photoshop, because "nothing else works as good", then you'll need to run that in wine, or go get a windows machine.
But as far as web browsers, email clients, text editors, networking tools, proxies, dns servers, firewalls, web servers, python-perl-ruby-c-c++, cloud servers, ftp-ssh-ftps, p2p, irc, instant message, rss, podcast, remote desktop, multimedia, media players, encoders, image viewers-generators, animation, webcam, DVD-CD-BLURAY, terminals, bash-sh-fish-csh-korn, file sync, debuggers, html-xml parsers, disk-filesystem tools, office suites, pdf viewers-makers, scanning, OCR, security, backup, forensic, science, education, blah blah blah.
What is missing in your disto of linux repos that you need to install more than 1 or 2 things outside of your repos softwares?
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
