5 ms·

This is funny, I could tell exactly the same story the other way around. I came as a 10+ year Debian user to Archlinux because it did too much automagic under t

by tobias2014 7y ago

This is funny, I could tell exactly the same story the other way around. I came as a 10+ year Debian user to Archlinux because it did too much automagic under the hood that broke and took a lot of time to fix. No breakage on arch because no automagic behind your back. For a long time before using arch I thought too that rolling release might be more unstable, but I have come to the conclusion that quite the opposite might be true.

rascul 7y ago
Could you give some examples of the automagic stuff Debian does under the hood?
- hendry 7y ago
  debhelper
  - morelisp 7y ago
    debhelper is a library of tools for building packages. Debian users should not need to be aware debhelper exists, or even have it installed. Maybe you meant debconf? When I was a DD it was an RC bug if your package used debconf to do "magic", i.e. using it as a registry for an application, or not properly re-seeding answers from the configuration and assuming the debconf db was the source of truth.
celticmusic 7y ago
thankfully I said Ubuntu and not Debian.
- shakna 7y ago
  Ubuntu has _more_ magic that breaks a lot more frequently in less expected ways than Debian.
  - AnonymousPlanet 7y ago
    Huh, when does anything break in Ubuntu LTS if you don't do a dist-upgrade? There's nothing to break if nothing changes. And the minor version upgrades along the years have not broken anything on any of my installs. Arch on the other hand ...
    - shakna 7y ago
      > Huh, when does anything break in Ubuntu LTS if you don't do a dist-upgrade? That's a fist-full of caveats. Arch is willing to upgrade the kernel, maybe you should include a dist-upgrade in the comparison.
      - AnonymousPlanet 7y ago
        And that is precisely what you should not. The dist-upgrade is something you can plan for and set time aside for. The risky rolling mini upgrade every couple of weeks you can not. That is a huge difference!
        shakna 7y ago
        > The dist-upgrade is something you can plan for and set time aside for. The risky rolling mini upgrade every couple of weeks you can not. I can plan for it? You can see if you're upgrading your kernel. Nothing breaks if you decide not to run an upgrade.
        AnonymousPlanet 7y ago
        And then I sit with a hopelessly old system I dare not to touch because I dread the day I have to do that kernel update or that one update that pulls in a new libc, leading to an upgrade orgy. I have seen that plenty of times. This nonsense is why stable and LTS releases were introduced in the first place. If I'm faced with a major upgrade of an LTS system, I usually choose to reinstall from scratch, shedding packages I haven't needed for a long time with it. But that happens every couple years or so. If you're okay with hitting the forums now and then to find out why your desktop has been behaving oddly the last two weeks, rolling is your thing. You won't have to break in your new dist-upgraded or freshly installed system for like two weeks. If you don't want to play lottery every time you hit enter for that update or if you're a business where you can't afford possibly breaking all your laptops for some security update, stable is your only option. It's "choose the best tool for the job" I guess.
rumanator 7y ago
> I came as a 10+ year Debian user to Archlinux because it did too much automagic under the hood that broke and took a lot of time to fix. This assertion makes no sense. Debian Stable has always the paragon of stability to the point that it's actually criticised for it. The Debian Testing release is even famous for being more solid than other distro's stable releases. Breaking changes in Debian are practically only remotely possible in Debian Unstable or if you purposely install packages from backports or PPA repositories that have no assurance of stability or even maintenance.
- Carpetsmoker 7y ago
  The problem isn't so much that Debian packages or the ecosystem "breaks" as such, but that you run in to bugs (sometimes already fixed ones), and that you're then basically stuck with that unless you, the maintainer, or someone else decides to backport the fix, and they frequently don't get backported especially not for "minor" bugs.
  - kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
    Just compile it yourself and put it in /usr/local.
    - Carpetsmoker 7y ago
      Well, yeah, but that's bypassing the package manager. You can say that in response to pretty much every argument about "I don't like package manager X because Y".
      - useragent86 7y ago
        Use "checkinstall" instead of "make install". It builds and installs packages automatically.

rascul 7y ago

Could you give some examples of the automagic stuff Debian does under the hood?

hendry 7y ago
debhelper
- morelisp 7y ago
  debhelper is a library of tools for building packages. Debian users should not need to be aware debhelper exists, or even have it installed. Maybe you meant debconf? When I was a DD it was an RC bug if your package used debconf to do "magic", i.e. using it as a registry for an application, or not properly re-seeding answers from the configuration and assuming the debconf db was the source of truth.

celticmusic 7y ago

thankfully I said Ubuntu and not Debian.

shakna 7y ago
Ubuntu has _more_ magic that breaks a lot more frequently in less expected ways than Debian.
- AnonymousPlanet 7y ago
  Huh, when does anything break in Ubuntu LTS if you don't do a dist-upgrade? There's nothing to break if nothing changes. And the minor version upgrades along the years have not broken anything on any of my installs. Arch on the other hand ...
  - shakna 7y ago
    > Huh, when does anything break in Ubuntu LTS if you don't do a dist-upgrade? That's a fist-full of caveats. Arch is willing to upgrade the kernel, maybe you should include a dist-upgrade in the comparison.
    - AnonymousPlanet 7y ago
      And that is precisely what you should not. The dist-upgrade is something you can plan for and set time aside for. The risky rolling mini upgrade every couple of weeks you can not. That is a huge difference!
      - shakna 7y ago
        > The dist-upgrade is something you can plan for and set time aside for. The risky rolling mini upgrade every couple of weeks you can not. I can plan for it? You can see if you're upgrading your kernel. Nothing breaks if you decide not to run an upgrade.
        AnonymousPlanet 7y ago
        And then I sit with a hopelessly old system I dare not to touch because I dread the day I have to do that kernel update or that one update that pulls in a new libc, leading to an upgrade orgy. I have seen that plenty of times. This nonsense is why stable and LTS releases were introduced in the first place. If I'm faced with a major upgrade of an LTS system, I usually choose to reinstall from scratch, shedding packages I haven't needed for a long time with it. But that happens every couple years or so. If you're okay with hitting the forums now and then to find out why your desktop has been behaving oddly the last two weeks, rolling is your thing. You won't have to break in your new dist-upgraded or freshly installed system for like two weeks. If you don't want to play lottery every time you hit enter for that update or if you're a business where you can't afford possibly breaking all your laptops for some security update, stable is your only option. It's "choose the best tool for the job" I guess.

rumanator 7y ago

> I came as a 10+ year Debian user to Archlinux because it did too much automagic under the hood that broke and took a lot of time to fix. This assertion makes no sense. Debian Stable has always the paragon of stability to the point that it's actually criticised for it. The Debian Testing release is even famous for being more solid than other distro's stable releases. Breaking changes in Debian are practically only remotely possible in Debian Unstable or if you purposely install packages from backports or PPA repositories that have no assurance of stability or even maintenance.

Carpetsmoker 7y ago
The problem isn't so much that Debian packages or the ecosystem "breaks" as such, but that you run in to bugs (sometimes already fixed ones), and that you're then basically stuck with that unless you, the maintainer, or someone else decides to backport the fix, and they frequently don't get backported especially not for "minor" bugs.
- kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
  Just compile it yourself and put it in /usr/local.
  - Carpetsmoker 7y ago
    Well, yeah, but that's bypassing the package manager. You can say that in response to pretty much every argument about "I don't like package manager X because Y".
    - useragent86 7y ago
      Use "checkinstall" instead of "make install". It builds and installs packages automatically.