5 ms·
>my experience doesn’t match the common notion that Arch Linux is unstable Arch is unstable, as in, package versions constantly change and can (will) introduce
by wooque 4y ago
>my experience doesn’t match the common notion that Arch Linux is unstable
Arch is unstable, as in, package versions constantly change and can (will) introduce bugs and regressions. Debian is considered stable because apart from security updates package versions are set in stone til the next release, so there won't be any surprises.
This is stable/unstable difference, that doesn't mean that you can't break your OS and have to reinstall in either Debian or Arch.
- jcelerier 4y ago> Debian is considered stable because apart from security updates package versions are set in stone til the next release, so there won't be any surprises. which is not what the rest of the world means by "stable" when talking about software, so there is in practice a lot of surprise for users coming to Debian when they hear "stable" thinking that it means "no bugs" when it actually means "no changes"
- gspr 4y ago> which is not what the rest of the world means by "stable" when talking about software But it is what the rest of the world means by "stable" in lots of ways: a stable climate, a stable government, a stable relationship, a stable heading. I don't think it's far-fetched for Debian to use it in that meaning about software as well.
- wooque 4y agostable, by dictionary definition, means "not changing or fluctuating", no bugs would be "bug free", there is no "bug free" distro.
- jcelerier 4y agoit's a problem of scale: it can mean "changing or fluctuating" as in, the software itself won't change over, say, a time scale of months (what Debian means), OR "changing or fluctuating" in the sense that a stable chair does not fluctuates, breaks or tips over when you sit on it, e.g. at the time scale of an human interaction. I'd wager than people mean the latter in general with the word "stable".
- pessimizer 4y agoBut if they think that they can have the second definiton without the first, they're fooling themselves. The reason Debian Stable is both kinds of stable is because they test forever, eventually put the most finely tested software into a release, then keep working on fixing any bugs in that release until the next one. edit: your new, experimental chair just released yesterday may be stable enough to sit on, but it's nothing to bet on.
- jcelerier 4y ago> The reason Debian Stable is both kinds of stable I stop you right there - I ran debian stable for years. Arch Linux has been so much more "stable" in terms of "less bugs and issues" for daily use it's not even funny
- CRConrad 4y agoTo be fair, "stable" also means "can stand up without falling over", which in a computer context gives it the secondary meaning (besides "unchanging") of "doesn't crash", which is very easily interpreted by the layman as "not beset by bugs that make it crash".
- seba_dos1 4y ago> which is not what the rest of the world means by "stable" when talking about software [citation needed] That's exactly what a lot of software projects mean when they make stable release branches, stable interfaces, stable protocols...
- jcelerier 4y agoI'm not taking about the world of software developers, but the world of humans. Go ask your non-tech family members what "is your computer stable?" means to them
- seba_dos1 4y agoGo ask a software developer what that question means to them and you'll get the same answer. Ever heard about that thing called "context"? ;) You may very well argue that stable is where horses are living. In context of software releases, "stable" has a clear meaning - and Debian releases are software releases.
- jcelerier 4y ago> Ever heard about that thing called "context"? ;) most people who use and talk about software aren't software developers - that's the context.