3 ms·

> faster than Arch that's a thing I haven't heard in a long time

by agumonkey 3y ago

ekianjo 3y ago
Even Fedora tends to update packages faster than Arch
- Jnr 3y ago
  Having used (and still using) Arch for over a decade, I can tell it is probably a good thing. Maintainers seem to know which packages bring trouble after updates and they do seem to test those more thoroughly. I have not experienced major breaking changes for desktop or other important piece of software in many years now. For example, things like Gnome always come to Arch months after it has been released upstream. But it makes sense because Gnome team always break existing extensions and community can't really keep up so it takes a while until popular extensions gain support. And sadly Gnome without extensions is more or less useless. Maybe Fedora gets latest Gnome on day one, but it is unusable without community extensions on day one. So kudos to maintainers of Arch!
  - Vogtinator 3y ago
    Somehow my experience is the other way around: Arch updates more slowly but somehow still manages to be much less stable...
    - ekianjo 3y ago
      What broke recently for you?
  - ekianjo 3y ago
    Yes its probably not bleeding edge anymore at this stage
- agumonkey 3y ago
  I only tried debian based distros on the side, arch being so quick I never thought others did match or go above. Interesting.
pxc 3y ago
This isn't borne out by the numbers, for the average package. Not for openSUSE or for Fedora. The only full Linux distros I currently see with a higher percentage of up-to-date packages than Arch are KaOS, CRUX, Slackware and NixOS: https://repology.org/repositories/statistics/pnewest https://repology.org/repositories/statistics/pnewest Of course, whether or not the most important packages to you hit each distro first could be a totally different story. Overall, openSUSE Tumbleweed is very up-to-date, though: ~76% by this measure— right up there with Fedora Rawhide and Gentoo.

> faster than Arch that's a thing I haven't heard in a long time

ekianjo 3y ago

Even Fedora tends to update packages faster than Arch

Jnr 3y ago
Having used (and still using) Arch for over a decade, I can tell it is probably a good thing. Maintainers seem to know which packages bring trouble after updates and they do seem to test those more thoroughly. I have not experienced major breaking changes for desktop or other important piece of software in many years now. For example, things like Gnome always come to Arch months after it has been released upstream. But it makes sense because Gnome team always break existing extensions and community can't really keep up so it takes a while until popular extensions gain support. And sadly Gnome without extensions is more or less useless. Maybe Fedora gets latest Gnome on day one, but it is unusable without community extensions on day one. So kudos to maintainers of Arch!
- Vogtinator 3y ago
  Somehow my experience is the other way around: Arch updates more slowly but somehow still manages to be much less stable...
  - ekianjo 3y ago
    What broke recently for you?
- ekianjo 3y ago
  Yes its probably not bleeding edge anymore at this stage
agumonkey 3y ago
I only tried debian based distros on the side, arch being so quick I never thought others did match or go above. Interesting.

pxc 3y ago

This isn't borne out by the numbers, for the average package. Not for openSUSE or for Fedora. The only full Linux distros I currently see with a higher percentage of up-to-date packages than Arch are KaOS, CRUX, Slackware and NixOS: https://repology.org/repositories/statistics/pnewest https://repology.org/repositories/statistics/pnewest Of course, whether or not the most important packages to you hit each distro first could be a totally different story. Overall, openSUSE Tumbleweed is very up-to-date, though: ~76% by this measure— right up there with Fedora Rawhide and Gentoo.