3 ms·

Having to rescue your system after every upgrade is either an exaggeration or you do weird things with your system. If the latter, quit that. I had my Arch sys

Having to rescue your system after every upgrade is either an exaggeration or you do weird things with your system. If the latter, quit that. I had my Arch system running for over a year, upgraded at least once a week. Only once did I need the rescue disk, and that was my own fault (some um... "clever" pacman command I dreamed up ended up uninstalling some pretty important things like all of base).

tinco 11y ago
It's a joke about how Archlinux works. If you do a "pacman -Syu" without reading the changelogs there is a good chance your system won't boot. You just can't be negligent. They might change the location of libc, they might switch to systemd, they change whatever they need to to be the coolest operating system on the block, and that's why I love them. But if you weren't hip to it, your system won't boot.
- ferrari8608 11y ago
  Arch isn't a distro for people who take issue to reading up on what they're actually doing to their system with upgrades, package installations, and configuration. That's why they have one of the most amazing wikis around. It's expected that you read all of the things. I still don't agree with the unbootable bit though. That hasn't happened on any of my systems (two Arch machines, two Arch-based Antergos machines) in over a year without it being my own fault tinkering with something. I don't know man, maybe we're running completely different hardware or something.
  - tinco 11y ago
    Please note that I ran Arch for over 5 years, upgrading perhaps once or twice a year. Rebooting only at power failures, and at particularly bad security issues. The hardware was a Pentium 4. This was years ago (when I was in college).
    - seba_dos1 11y ago
      That's basically guaranteed to break your system on Arch. Don't do that - it's your fault when it breaks like that.
- castratikron 11y ago
  >they might switch to systemd I remember that day. I was an Arch user at the time. For me, everything went without a hitch, but I know a couple of my friends had a lot of grief over the switch, especially since they had no idea the switch was happening until after things broke.

tinco 11y ago

It's a joke about how Archlinux works. If you do a "pacman -Syu" without reading the changelogs there is a good chance your system won't boot. You just can't be negligent. They might change the location of libc, they might switch to systemd, they change whatever they need to to be the coolest operating system on the block, and that's why I love them. But if you weren't hip to it, your system won't boot.

ferrari8608 11y ago
Arch isn't a distro for people who take issue to reading up on what they're actually doing to their system with upgrades, package installations, and configuration. That's why they have one of the most amazing wikis around. It's expected that you read all of the things. I still don't agree with the unbootable bit though. That hasn't happened on any of my systems (two Arch machines, two Arch-based Antergos machines) in over a year without it being my own fault tinkering with something. I don't know man, maybe we're running completely different hardware or something.
- tinco 11y ago
  Please note that I ran Arch for over 5 years, upgrading perhaps once or twice a year. Rebooting only at power failures, and at particularly bad security issues. The hardware was a Pentium 4. This was years ago (when I was in college).
  - seba_dos1 11y ago
    That's basically guaranteed to break your system on Arch. Don't do that - it's your fault when it breaks like that.
castratikron 11y ago
>they might switch to systemd I remember that day. I was an Arch user at the time. For me, everything went without a hitch, but I know a couple of my friends had a lot of grief over the switch, especially since they had no idea the switch was happening until after things broke.