3 ms·

As a sysadmin of machines on several distros, IME Arch is the most "linux-like" in that I'm constantly having to figure out obscure errors to make shit work aga

As a sysadmin of machines on several distros, IME Arch is the most "linux-like" in that I'm constantly having to figure out obscure errors to make shit work again after an update. No snark: I understand that's largely a result of Arch deliberately pushing decisions down to users rather than deciding for you, appreciate that it's a deliberate decision, and am _very_ glad it exists. I guess if "Linux is about choice" (it's not) then Arch is very Linux-like.

I_Am_Nous 3y ago
I tried using Arch for my work machine for a bit. It might be better if I only manually run updates for security stuff, but that's management time I could spend doing my job, not polishing my tools.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
kouteiheika 3y ago
> As a sysadmin of machines on several distros, IME Arch is the most "linux-like" in that I'm constantly having to figure out obscure errors to make shit work again after an update. This is interesting because it hasn't been my experience at all. IIRC in the last 3 years I only had to fix something after an update once, and that was only because of my own stupidity. I actually find Arch a lot more stable now than when I was using Ubuntu many many years ago, where something would always break after upgrading to a new version. (But maybe Ubuntu's better in this regards nowadays; I don't know.)
- bsagdiyev 3y ago
  Arch completely broke systemd-boot after a recent update for me on my laptop. After spending half a day trying to figure out how to get it put itself back in to the loader.conf I just put Windows 11 on the laptop. My girlfriend uses the laptop and wouldn't know how to fix this if it happened again. So it still breaks stuff on occasion. Maybe not for you, but it does.
  - Vilian 3y ago
    why tf you put arch on her laptop
  - kouteiheika 3y ago
    Well, I use GRUB for booting since, let's see... well, since I first installed this system, probably something like ~10 years ago, and it just works, never breaks, and I never have to touch it. The parent poster was definitely right that Arch pushes all of the decisions down to the users rather than deciding for you, so I suppose how much it breaks depends on how good your decisions are and how much of a Linux expert you are. I could fix virtually any broken Linux system while blindfolded, so I know how to set it up so that it never breaks and doesn't require any maintenance. This probably explains the difference in our experiences.
herbst 3y ago
That's where manjaro hobs in. Nearly as bleeding edge, same repos, AUR but somehow less prone to total system failures on updates.
- hiccuphippo 3y ago
  But does that make Manajaro less Linux-like? I think FreeBSD is "Linux-like"; Arch, Ubuntu, Fedora and their descendants are all Linux. Maybe the original authors meant Unix-like?

I_Am_Nous 3y ago

I tried using Arch for my work machine for a bit. It might be better if I only manually run updates for security stuff, but that's management time I could spend doing my job, not polishing my tools.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

kouteiheika 3y ago

> As a sysadmin of machines on several distros, IME Arch is the most "linux-like" in that I'm constantly having to figure out obscure errors to make shit work again after an update. This is interesting because it hasn't been my experience at all. IIRC in the last 3 years I only had to fix something after an update once, and that was only because of my own stupidity. I actually find Arch a lot more stable now than when I was using Ubuntu many many years ago, where something would always break after upgrading to a new version. (But maybe Ubuntu's better in this regards nowadays; I don't know.)

bsagdiyev 3y ago
Arch completely broke systemd-boot after a recent update for me on my laptop. After spending half a day trying to figure out how to get it put itself back in to the loader.conf I just put Windows 11 on the laptop. My girlfriend uses the laptop and wouldn't know how to fix this if it happened again. So it still breaks stuff on occasion. Maybe not for you, but it does.
- Vilian 3y ago
  why tf you put arch on her laptop
- kouteiheika 3y ago
  Well, I use GRUB for booting since, let's see... well, since I first installed this system, probably something like ~10 years ago, and it just works, never breaks, and I never have to touch it. The parent poster was definitely right that Arch pushes all of the decisions down to the users rather than deciding for you, so I suppose how much it breaks depends on how good your decisions are and how much of a Linux expert you are. I could fix virtually any broken Linux system while blindfolded, so I know how to set it up so that it never breaks and doesn't require any maintenance. This probably explains the difference in our experiences.

herbst 3y ago

That's where manjaro hobs in. Nearly as bleeding edge, same repos, AUR but somehow less prone to total system failures on updates.

hiccuphippo 3y ago
But does that make Manajaro less Linux-like? I think FreeBSD is "Linux-like"; Arch, Ubuntu, Fedora and their descendants are all Linux. Maybe the original authors meant Unix-like?