8 ms·

Agreed 100%. I'm really impressed at how much is available in the AUR, and how quick Arch gets updated, and I have to attribute it primarily to how easy it is t

Agreed 100%. I'm really impressed at how much is available in the AUR, and how quick Arch gets updated, and I have to attribute it primarily to how easy it is to maintain packages.

paulcarroty 7y ago
> and how quick Arch gets updated > and how often Arch will be broken after updates If You Have Said A, You Must Also Say B (c)
- techntoke 7y ago
  Nope, not at all. I havent had my system break in more than a year, and when it did it was surprisingly easy to fix. Usually you can just downgrade whatever package or kernel caused the issues until they get fixed. Once I did have to boot Arch from USB to resolve, but that has been a long time ago.
- jchw 7y ago
  I find this extremely untrue actually. Distros like Debian make you think that a rolling release must be unstable by virtue of the fact that the underlying software is unstable and it just isn’t true. Most of the software just isn’t breaking. The downstream is just doing too much magic, and that is breaking. Arch is easily one of the most stable distros I’ve used Period. No hyperbole at all. It is more stable than NixOS unstable, and much more stable than Debian testing, and you don’t have to deal with the periodic massive shift that breaks the world when you upgrade Debian or Ubuntu versions. It’s because it’s simple. When it was a newer distro it had some issues, but for at least the past few years it’s been very stable, and most packages require few patches from upstream to work well. Even using a bunch of AUR packages doesn’t usually lead to unstability in Arch. Upgrades that require manual intervention are documented on the front page: https://www.archlinux.org/ https://www.archlinux.org/ I’ve hit two during my multi year span of using Arch. Worth noting that few bugs will impact everyone since they are often scoped to packages that are not installed by default.

Agreed 100%. I'm really impressed at how much is available in the AUR, and how quick Arch gets updated, and I have to attribute it primarily to how easy it is to maintain packages.

paulcarroty 7y ago

> and how quick Arch gets updated > and how often Arch will be broken after updates If You Have Said A, You Must Also Say B (c)

techntoke 7y ago
Nope, not at all. I havent had my system break in more than a year, and when it did it was surprisingly easy to fix. Usually you can just downgrade whatever package or kernel caused the issues until they get fixed. Once I did have to boot Arch from USB to resolve, but that has been a long time ago.
jchw 7y ago
I find this extremely untrue actually. Distros like Debian make you think that a rolling release must be unstable by virtue of the fact that the underlying software is unstable and it just isn’t true. Most of the software just isn’t breaking. The downstream is just doing too much magic, and that is breaking. Arch is easily one of the most stable distros I’ve used Period. No hyperbole at all. It is more stable than NixOS unstable, and much more stable than Debian testing, and you don’t have to deal with the periodic massive shift that breaks the world when you upgrade Debian or Ubuntu versions. It’s because it’s simple. When it was a newer distro it had some issues, but for at least the past few years it’s been very stable, and most packages require few patches from upstream to work well. Even using a bunch of AUR packages doesn’t usually lead to unstability in Arch. Upgrades that require manual intervention are documented on the front page: https://www.archlinux.org/ https://www.archlinux.org/ I’ve hit two during my multi year span of using Arch. Worth noting that few bugs will impact everyone since they are often scoped to packages that are not installed by default.