4 ms·
Last time I tried Arch (about a decade ago), I gave a command to update packages. In the update, my NVIDIA card was moved to be supported by "nvidia-legacy" ra
by scj 8y ago
Last time I tried Arch (about a decade ago), I gave a command to update packages. In the update, my NVIDIA card was moved to be supported by "nvidia-legacy" rather than "nvidia"... Of course, I didn't have legacy drivers installed, so the driver failed pretty badly (it was assigned to NVIDIA in my xorg conf). X wouldn't load, and because several aspects of X changed in the update, I had to spend a few hours figuring out what when wrong.
The point of the above (possibly out of date) story is that when I say "update", I want a minimal chance that something serious changed. I don't mind fiddling around with Linux, but I want it to be on my terms (like a lazy Sunday). Giving the user a choice between "update" and "upgrade" allows me to specify when I want to apply major changes.
- cat199 8y agonvidia's binary blobs cause headaches on all distros - this isn't really a distro/linux issue.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y agoIt kind of is, since Linux is the one insisting on being actively hostile drivers that aren't part of the kernel source tree.
- scj 8y agoThe point is that this should be an "upgrade" change vs. an "update" change. Rolling releases only have the later concept, meaning that instead of the user acknowledging and preparing for a change, users need to respond to it.
- youseecomrade 8y agoCouldn't they do a "freeze" with backports just for the LTS? My experience with non LTS versions were always awful so I don't see why a rolling release model would be that much worse.
- pnutjam 8y agoRolling releases break more. If you get to far away from the current version, good luck updating.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]