@toadie great idea! I will consider it just for a fun test
2 Likes
~50 Mbit with active VPN and uploading files to azure and my wife is streaming something.
For me it’s enougth
1 Like
Actually guys no, the update was not large at all.
With Microsoft Windows a long overdue update would be gigs, because it downloads every update. That’s why a new installation of Windows takes forever to set up. All the updates to come down.
With Arch, all it needs to download is the latest library, program file, etc. So if that library was updated 50 times in the last year, it still downloads just the latest one. So total download would be just as big as the OS and all the programs. It took all but 10 to 15 minutes to download and update. And that’s with a 400 MB connection.
I say Arch, because I did an Ubuntu 22.04 to 24.04 upgrade via GUI and had to leave that running overnight. I did the same for Fedora 40 to 41. So those took a while. @hydn What’s your upgrade experience like?
1 Like
Well currently, of course, my update experience is entirely with Kali Linux, the updates are similar but less than Arch Linux; both in frequency and download size.
Also see the LTS kernel for Arch, everything else remains bleeding-edge but at least you reduce the risk of kernel related issues:
Key Differences:
- Arch Linux: Is truly a bleeding edge rolling release. Packages are updated as soon as upstream releases them, often within days.
- Kali Linux: Also rolling, but based on Debian Testing, which means packages already have gone through a stabilization period before release and then also reviewed by Kali devs before pushed to kali-rolling branch.
Kali Linux, like Debian, also provides branches. The default branch is kali-rolling. The other main branch available is kali-last-snapshot.
kali-last-snapshot
- This branch is a frozen version of kali-rolling, providing a stable snapshot at a specific point in time.
- Ideal for users who need a more predictable, tested environment without constant updates.
On Kali, if you want to be as close to the edge like Arch Linux, it’s also possible: you can switch to the kali-bleeding-edge. However, that was why I moved away from Arch, I prefer devs provide the oversight on the bleeding-edge stuff then, provide it to me after they’ve tested.
There’s also kali-dev branch. Ok so here’s basically how they compare with each other and vs. Arch:
kali-bleeding-edge
- This branch is the most up-to-date, pulling directly from upstream sources like Arch Linux.
- If you want the latest packages as soon as possible, this is the best match for Arch.
kali-dev
- This is another option since it sits just ahead of kali-rolling in the pipeline.
- It updates before they make it into the stable rolling branch, making it closer to Arch but not as extreme as kali-bleeding-edge.
Comparison to Arch:
- Arch Linux is always cutting-edge because it follows upstream releases without much of a testing or staging buffer.
- kali-bleeding-edge would be the closest equivalent, since it takes updates directly from upstream sources before they land in other branches.
I’m basically pulling from what I read here:
1 Like
Just for tell you… I started using a Debian stable virtual machine (only in a CLI environment, but it’s no so useful information to know).
Debian stable is having very small updates weekly, the only problem was with the kernel that was upgrading too frequently.
I decided to install the Liquorix kernel updated like 1 week ago at the date I’m typing and I freezed it’s version by commenting it on src/apt/ the Liquorix repository.
I think it’s a good practice, Chat GPT said me it’s a clever mode of mantaining, I might consider to upgrade the kernel next months without pressure. I think most important thing from now is having a stable machine, without too frequently updates. For now I succeded on this goal.
1 Like
I am doing an update to Manjaro i3. It’s been 60 days. Download size: 2.6 GB.
1 Like
2.6 GB for 60 days are not much i guess. Normal nowadays 
One of the reasons I think it reached up there was all the extra software I had installed, which of course meant plenty libraries.
In comparison, when I did the vanilla Arch Budgie, which just had Firefox installed it was 1.3 GB for one year, as I mentioned above.
Actually, one should distinguish between OS updates and software updates.
More software = more updates
I do agree. But is it possible to do that? Besides Linux firmware, systemd and a couple of others, how do you tell the difference?
This begs another question, is the desktop environment or window manager part of the OS or software?
For stay in conversation.. I switched again from POP!_OS last release to Linux Lite.. beside Windows in a dual boot environment.. eheh 
Today it comes out Linux Lite release 7.4. Linux Lite is very well known for not being so bleeding edges on updates.. it’s based at top of Ubuntu LTS.
The upgrade process from version 7.2 to version 7.4 it takes almost 5 - 10 minutes. Just a click in a gui, a progress bar.. et voilà! I don’t know how many megs I did download, I’m guessing about some hundreds.
Daily Linux Lite is getting really few updates, just critical security patches and a little more.
So I would say Linux Lite is very great compromise between fresh software and stability, such as Ubuntu, but less bloated and without telemetry.
I’ll keep you updated about.
2 Likes