2 ms·

I don't know about your experience, but if at most 13 little manual interventions in 6 years would be the only problem of most "stable" distros I would have nev

I don't know about your experience, but if at most 13 little manual interventions in 6 years would be the only problem of most "stable" distros I would have never switched to Arch. I've had various non-rolling distros fall apart on all sides within 6 months. With Arch I've had one manual intervention(aka one copy-pasted command) in over a year and one minor issue where I needed to restart a service. That's amazing and something I'll gladly take in exchange for painless and straightforward setup of pretty much anything. Not to mention with regular backups(that should be done either way) and delaying updates in critical time periods you can easily minimize the risk.

celticmusic 7y ago
> Not to mention with regular backups(that should be done either way) and delaying updates in critical time periods you can easily minimize the risk. That's the minimum that you should be doing regardless of the OS. And thus, that's not where the risk is at. It's probably more difficult to understand if you get paid regardless of whether you can get meaningful work done. But for those of us who live on the other side, losing an unplanned half a day due to an OS issue that actively causes us to lose money, it matters. Arch is bleeding edge, this means software bugs are far more likely on it.