> but anything else will literary harm the distro ability to evolve and adapt to software changes. Comparing nixpkgs to the AUR seems to reflect the opposite t

> but anything else will literary harm the distro ability to evolve and adapt to software changes. Comparing nixpkgs to the AUR seems to reflect the opposite trend. Arch is hamstrung by a dependence on outdated and poorly maintained repos that cannot coexist with up-to-date packages. Unless you fully embrace static linking or atomic installs, you'll end up with breakage. MacOS went the static linking route, and Windows wrote back-compat for most old software by hand. The "decades of history" hasn't proven any approach right or wrong. They're all flawed.