Rolling release distributions are not stable by definition

Rolling release distributions are not stable by definition.
Stop pushing this retarded notion that they can be "stable", because they are not.
Just because something doesn't break doesn't mean it's stable. Rolling release distributions are meant to have gradual and frequent updates, which means your system is going to change all the time. This is not stability. It may be a reliable system that doesn't break, but it's not stable.

Attached: 1625016990910.jpg (3000x2000, 797.32K)

if you look like pic related i will be your gf

feet

Kys tranny

PREACH SISTER!

Attached: 1641982309535.png (1500x1063, 1.38M)

>Rolling release distributions are not stable by definition.
>Stop pushing this retarded notion that they can be "stable"

What the fuck. No shit, sherlock. Why make an entire thread about people who cannot differentiate descriptors?

The only people who do this are probably Manjaro shills, which are fruit hanging lower than the Earth's crust to begin with.

You're not wrong or anything. This is more of a mid conversation response than anything thread worthy.

Attached: download.jpg (275x183, 11.22K)

Tfw under Linuxfag definitions, Windows is a rolling release distro because it can update without having to reinstall the whole OS.

How KEKED do you have to be to use a non-rollokg release....

Attached: 1637787390373.jpg (750x730, 124.98K)

*blocks your path*

Attached: 1665278.png (1280x1163, 72.09K)

blocks what fucking path? OP is bitching about semantics and you HAVE to shill your no-name distribution.

This is a bot, right?

But Void is stable

Guix can be as stable as you want, since you can freeze channels to a commit, while being rolling release.
>This is a bot, right?
Fuck off faggot.

oh, ok.

I agree with your definition of stable. But who is pushing "the notion that they can be stable"? Who exactly are you arguing to?

>Who exactly are you arguing to?
OP's nurse here. I forgot to give him his anti-psychotics.

Install gentoo

Wrong definition of "stable". In software you usually have a stable version, a beta version and an alpha version (with further subcategories within these three). Rolling release distros run the latest stable version of software, so they are stable by definition. The word you're looking for is "static". You want a static, unchanging system.

Wrong. When taken in isolation, those versions of software are stable releases (at least as deemed by upstream). Note that there is no single "stable" release, old stable releases don't magically become "unstable" once a newer stable release comes out.

Rolling release distributions always run the very latest such versions, meaning that the whole system is unstable (notice how there is no such thing as a "stable release" for rolling release distributions themselves). Merely using the latest versions that upstream considers "stable" does not make the overall system stable. Likewise, a specific software project can use, in its development/alpha versions, external dependencies that are themselves stable versions, but that does not make the overall software a stable release.

those are some fappable feet ngl

>meaning that the whole system is unstable
Because...? All you're saying is that you don't trust upstream to reliably mark stable releases as "stable", and that's fine, but it's an opinion. A rolling release distribution isn't software depending on other software libraries to function, it's a software compilation. If the system only consists of stable releases of software then the system is stable by definition. It runs reliably and it doesn't break, so it's stable.

>GNU Guix System
>no-name
Retard.

>Wrong definition of "stable".
Words can have multiple meanings, and none of them is "wrong". OP is merely asking someone to only use "stable" when it means "doesn't change".
I agree with this idea but I have no idea who he's talking to.

>>distro used by 5 or 6 people
>>no-name
>Retard.