4 ms·
I've run arch on probably a dozen or more physical machines (more if you count VMs) over the last 12 years. I can count the number of breaking updates on 1 hand
by mcbuilder 5y ago
I've run arch on probably a dozen or more physical machines (more if you count VMs) over the last 12 years. I can count the number of breaking updates on 1 hand. The talk about it being unstable may have been sort of true 10 years ago, but now it's just complete FUD.
- cookiengineer 5y agoI mean, everybody blaming Arch for being breaking and unstable...as if Debian or Ubuntu never were unstable. Quick to forget all the Mir, GNOME, wayland messups, huh? The huge difference with Arch is that it's usually recoverable, no matter what's broken. And that's what I like the most about it.
- seba_dos1 5y agoDebian is more recoverable though. dpkg is much more robust regarding rollbacks and installation failures in cases that pacman (by design) simply does not handle at all. It's much easier to break something in Arch and not notice at all until things start layering up (although it also means it's easier to fix things up "just enough", while Debian will give you hard time until the issue is resolved completely).