4 ms·
Interestingly I've had far, far less issues in Arch over a year or so of using it, than I did trying to use Debian stable ~10 years ago. It could be that I'm j
by stegosaurus 11y ago
Interestingly I've had far, far less issues in Arch over a year or so of using it, than I did trying to use Debian stable ~10 years ago.
It could be that I'm just more of a unix beast now and so do it automatically without thinking. I remember having to edit Xorg configuration files, having tons of unsupported hardware, etc.
Arch has basically just worked for me on all my machines with the exception of some esoteric features (e.g. zfs requires a bit of fiddling).
What problems have you had in particular?
- sevensor 11y agoI can't speak to problems with Arch either -- I've installed it on a number of machines and never had a serious issue. Every now and then something minor will break. For 15 minutes once I couldn't use VTE-based terminal emulators because of a configuration bug. This was easily fixed with googling. And that's literally the worst thing that's ever happened to any of my Arch installs.
- johnchristopher 11y agoOr maybe hardware is now much better supported whatever the distribution you use ?
- stegosaurus 11y agoThat is certainly true. All distributions work much better because the kernel and userspace are just more solid now.
- Kadin 11y agoI think the key difference is "10 years ago"; Debian Stable today is a much more pleasant experience than Debian Stable a decade ago. I haven't used Arch so I can't comment there, but there's been a lot of improvement in hardware compatibility over the years. Being any sort of early-adopter on the hardware front will, as always, get you punished with configuration file editing, though.