But it's not randomly frozen, it's tied to Ubuntu's LTS builds. And they didn't say "stable" is the same as "works well", they said Mint is both (which is true from my experience at least)
If you need newer packages with Mint, Flatpak is a good way to go (yes it has its own issues, but they do work well for a lot of people)
It is randomly frozen as not all developers follow Ubuntus release schedule. They just release when it is ready.
Stability means backporting tons of bugfixes to tons of small packages and libraries. I dont think Ubuntu does that for enough packages, best example Plasma 5.27 on Kubuntu. I have reported over 200 bugs I guess and most of the newer ones are just fixed in Plasma 6.
Flatpak for sure is a good way, and if a distro is stable, they should only install Flatpaks.
It is not randomly frozen as Mint does follow Ubuntu's LTS releases, every new version they put out is based on whatever the current Ubuntu LTS is. Their release cadence isn't linked that closely as a new LTS usually takes a few months to spawn a new Mint release based on it, but they aren't just freezing some arbitrary point in time of development.
If you mean Ubuntu is randomly frozen, it isn't either. It follows a release schedule, determines a roadmap, and at a certain predetermined point in developing a new release, they do freeze for new versions so they can complete testing and ensure everything works together in time to release on schedule. It's certainly not "random".
And that's also not what stability means. Stability means functionality doesn't change, so an up to date Mint 21.3 installed on release is going to be the same as one installed and updated now, functionally speaking. This is accomplished by only backporting important security patches and bug fixes to the version of the software that's used by the system rather than getting it with new versions where there are new features and changes to existing functionality that can break things based on the previous version. This does not mean it gets all fixes, just the ones they deem worth the effort of backporting.
Yes I think you mentioned the relevant points here. Ubuntu tests their preinstalled software, while there is tons more in the repos that is not as tested. Same with Mint.
And they backport only stuff they think is necessary. For example Plasma 5 is based on the EOL Qt5 and backporting things to Plasma 5 is nearly impossible as you need real Plasma devs and nobody really wants to do that.
Plasma 6 is really stable, 6.1 not so much, but the timing was not perfect. Simply because they do their release schedule as fixed as that.
It is a total pain if you simply want working software, as they may backport some stuff, but all the stuff not preinstalled, or that is very complex, will not get fixes.
This is the same with all stable distros, if the maintainers dont literally maintain all the software there is.
I mean, that's definitely a downside to long term stable distros. So, basically, the choice is between that and a rolling release which has the downside of the possibility of things breaking on update and never really having an easily reproducible build
No, Fedora is semi-rolling with less random freezes. Regular Ubuntu is similar but just not Ubuntu please.
Fedora also had 13 months of support so staying on the older version gives an extra stability.
And then there is OpenSUSE slowroll, which is CI/CD with more testing
Fedora is not rolling at all, it just has a fast release cycle
It is semi-rolling. They ship different point releases and kernels within a release
Hmm... If that's the case, that's news to me. I'll admit I don't do much with Fedora, I'll have to take a closer look at them.
But it's not randomly frozen, it's tied to Ubuntu's LTS builds. And they didn't say "stable" is the same as "works well", they said Mint is both (which is true from my experience at least)
If you need newer packages with Mint, Flatpak is a good way to go (yes it has its own issues, but they do work well for a lot of people)
It is randomly frozen as not all developers follow Ubuntus release schedule. They just release when it is ready.
Stability means backporting tons of bugfixes to tons of small packages and libraries. I dont think Ubuntu does that for enough packages, best example Plasma 5.27 on Kubuntu. I have reported over 200 bugs I guess and most of the newer ones are just fixed in Plasma 6.
Flatpak for sure is a good way, and if a distro is stable, they should only install Flatpaks.
It is not randomly frozen as Mint does follow Ubuntu's LTS releases, every new version they put out is based on whatever the current Ubuntu LTS is. Their release cadence isn't linked that closely as a new LTS usually takes a few months to spawn a new Mint release based on it, but they aren't just freezing some arbitrary point in time of development.
If you mean Ubuntu is randomly frozen, it isn't either. It follows a release schedule, determines a roadmap, and at a certain predetermined point in developing a new release, they do freeze for new versions so they can complete testing and ensure everything works together in time to release on schedule. It's certainly not "random".
And that's also not what stability means. Stability means functionality doesn't change, so an up to date Mint 21.3 installed on release is going to be the same as one installed and updated now, functionally speaking. This is accomplished by only backporting important security patches and bug fixes to the version of the software that's used by the system rather than getting it with new versions where there are new features and changes to existing functionality that can break things based on the previous version. This does not mean it gets all fixes, just the ones they deem worth the effort of backporting.
Yes I think you mentioned the relevant points here. Ubuntu tests their preinstalled software, while there is tons more in the repos that is not as tested. Same with Mint.
And they backport only stuff they think is necessary. For example Plasma 5 is based on the EOL Qt5 and backporting things to Plasma 5 is nearly impossible as you need real Plasma devs and nobody really wants to do that.
Plasma 6 is really stable, 6.1 not so much, but the timing was not perfect. Simply because they do their release schedule as fixed as that.
It is a total pain if you simply want working software, as they may backport some stuff, but all the stuff not preinstalled, or that is very complex, will not get fixes.
This is the same with all stable distros, if the maintainers dont literally maintain all the software there is.
I mean, that's definitely a downside to long term stable distros. So, basically, the choice is between that and a rolling release which has the downside of the possibility of things breaking on update and never really having an easily reproducible build
No, Fedora is semi-rolling with less random freezes. Regular Ubuntu is similar but just not Ubuntu please.
Fedora also had 13 months of support so staying on the older version gives an extra stability.
And then there is OpenSUSE slowroll, which is CI/CD with more testing
Fedora is not rolling at all, it just has a fast release cycle
It is semi-rolling. They ship different point releases and kernels within a release
Hmm... If that's the case, that's news to me. I'll admit I don't do much with Fedora, I'll have to take a closer look at them.