4 ms·

If we're honest: Arch is annoying, but the reason people (including me) run it is because they don't want their OS to explode in a shitstorm every time a 'major

If we're honest: Arch is annoying, but the reason people (including me) run it is because they don't want their OS to explode in a shitstorm every time a 'major upgrade' cycle happens. (Looking at you, Ubuntu.) So, your comment is 180 degrees off the mark. Arch exists for people who don't want breakages to happen. (On the other hand, if you're conditioned by Windows to reinstall the system every year, then Ubuntu might work fine for you.)

alpaca128 7y ago
> Arch exists for people who don't want breakages to happen. Or, for people who don't want breakages but also want/need current software versions. Debian-based stuff can be pretty nice and stable as well, but on Arch installing and setting up anything usually "just works" without missing dependencies, renamed packages etc.
celticmusic 7y ago
The difference is I that I know the dist-upgrade is coming and can plan for it. With Arch it's on that one day that I really needed to get work done, but Arch decided it wasn't happening. I think I'll take the planned upgrade, thanks.