4 ms·

I've also been using Linux for years (Arch, btw) and never had an update break my install or cause issues, I've only had to fix the Linux bootloader when Window

I've also been using Linux for years (Arch, btw) and never had an update break my install or cause issues, I've only had to fix the Linux bootloader when Windows overwrote it after a major update, multiple times...

majkinetor 1y ago
Really? I love Arch, but even my hard core Linux friends warn me about update problems.
dijit 1y ago
I've had plenty of issues with Arch updates. In fact; I have a laptop right now that hasn't received updates because there's a shared object that has been removed that `yay` depends on. (this was from a long time ago). I generally think that updates of the mainstream distro's like Debian will definitely *NOT* brick your system in almost any circumstance, and arch tends to be somewhat solid, but every once in a while something dire happens with arch which would make me not agree with the fact that updates are always seamless.
- akimbostrawman 1y ago
  AUR issues are not arch issues "AUR packages are user-produced content. These PKGBUILDs are completely unofficial and have not been thoroughly vetted. Any use of the provided files is at your own risk." Usually just rebuilding a AUR package will fix most issues.
  - dijit 1y ago
    I would say it's fair, but then it leads to an interesting problem that could happen. Build a tiny core, ask the community to extend: never be liable for any issue because important packages that are essentially required aren't part of the core and thus any criticism is invalid. Not saying that's happening here, but it could happen by this definition. But, ok, there are more issues anyway, for example it's pretty common that you have to update archlinux-keychain before an upgrade can succeed because the signing keys have rotated and someone has already packaged an update to something with the new key. That is definitely base.
    - akimbostrawman 1y ago
      Arch isn't liable regardless. It's a community driven project run by volunteers without contracts. >it's pretty common that you have to update archlinux-keychain before an upgrade can succeed because the signing keys "Since 2022-07-29, the archlinux-keyring-wkd-sync.service and the associated systemd timer have been created and enabled by default" https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Pacman/Package_signing#Upgrade_system_regularly https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Pacman/Package_signing#Upgr...
      - dijit 1y ago
        Listen, dude, this isn’t litigation. The shit is broken sometimes, it’s ok, but we are here to be intellectually curious and have a discussion. Lying to people about how broken it can be to update in reality is the opposite of that. We aren’t here to pull down arch or the community; just here to spit facts.
        akimbostrawman 1y ago
        I disagree that having to update a package which is also now a automatic service qualifies as broken. Sure there are issues but they are usually either self induced e.g. AUR, easily fixable e.g. keyring update or broadcasted publicly with a fix e.g. archnews. At the end of the day arch is firmly a do it yourself distro where some user intervention is expected.
        dijit 1y ago
        Right so, > I've also been using Linux for years (Arch, btw) and never had an update break my install or cause issues Is an anecdote that is worthy of being attacked with my own, given the context that people might come away thinking that Arch updates do not break their system.. right?
        akimbostrawman 1y ago
        Right, just make sure that anecdote actually applies.
  - majkinetor 1y ago
    Yeah, arch is basically unusable without AUR, so that is semantic difference without grounding in reality. Many people use Arch becuase of its package manager.
    - akimbostrawman 1y ago
      That is maybe how you feel but it obviously works just fine without it otherwise it would not be explicitly separated. I do not have more than a handful AUR packages none of which are essential or without alternative. >Many people use Arch because of its package manager True pacman is great but that has nothing to do with the AUR.
- Shikadi 1y ago
  I've had far more Ubuntu distro upgrades break than succeed, and often without solutions online other than reinstall. Haven't had that issue with Arch since 2011. I use Ubuntu for work and Arch for personal so I've basically been using both full time for over a decade. Anecdotes be anecdotes
vel0city 1y ago
I've been using Linux for decades and have had many times of installing updates breaking a machine to the point where I'd rather just reimage than try and fix the pile of issues. So many times of installing updates and now all the graphics don't work, now audio is broken, where did my network adapters go, etc. To the point that now most Linux things I touch, when I want to update I just deploy a fresh image rather than actually install updates. I can't really trust the state of the machine after a year of quietly installing updates. A line item on my agenda today is actually helping a team figure out why when they do a release upgrade on their pet Ubuntu VM practically everything they care about on the box breaks and helping them plan out strategies to un-pet these workloads. I've had a good share of Windows updates making a mess of things, don't get me wrong. But I've had plenty of bad updates in Linux over the years.
bee_rider 1y ago
Using a rolling release distro is not really a fair comparison. Little frequent updates are a lot easier than giant catastrophic ones.

majkinetor 1y ago

Really? I love Arch, but even my hard core Linux friends warn me about update problems.

dijit 1y ago

I've had plenty of issues with Arch updates. In fact; I have a laptop right now that hasn't received updates because there's a shared object that has been removed that `yay` depends on. (this was from a long time ago). I generally think that updates of the mainstream distro's like Debian will definitely *NOT* brick your system in almost any circumstance, and arch tends to be somewhat solid, but every once in a while something dire happens with arch which would make me not agree with the fact that updates are always seamless.

akimbostrawman 1y ago
AUR issues are not arch issues "AUR packages are user-produced content. These PKGBUILDs are completely unofficial and have not been thoroughly vetted. Any use of the provided files is at your own risk." Usually just rebuilding a AUR package will fix most issues.
- dijit 1y ago
  I would say it's fair, but then it leads to an interesting problem that could happen. Build a tiny core, ask the community to extend: never be liable for any issue because important packages that are essentially required aren't part of the core and thus any criticism is invalid. Not saying that's happening here, but it could happen by this definition. But, ok, there are more issues anyway, for example it's pretty common that you have to update archlinux-keychain before an upgrade can succeed because the signing keys have rotated and someone has already packaged an update to something with the new key. That is definitely base.
  - akimbostrawman 1y ago
    Arch isn't liable regardless. It's a community driven project run by volunteers without contracts. >it's pretty common that you have to update archlinux-keychain before an upgrade can succeed because the signing keys "Since 2022-07-29, the archlinux-keyring-wkd-sync.service and the associated systemd timer have been created and enabled by default" https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Pacman/Package_signing#Upgrade_system_regularly https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Pacman/Package_signing#Upgr...
    - dijit 1y ago
      Listen, dude, this isn’t litigation. The shit is broken sometimes, it’s ok, but we are here to be intellectually curious and have a discussion. Lying to people about how broken it can be to update in reality is the opposite of that. We aren’t here to pull down arch or the community; just here to spit facts.
      - akimbostrawman 1y ago
        I disagree that having to update a package which is also now a automatic service qualifies as broken. Sure there are issues but they are usually either self induced e.g. AUR, easily fixable e.g. keyring update or broadcasted publicly with a fix e.g. archnews. At the end of the day arch is firmly a do it yourself distro where some user intervention is expected.
        dijit 1y ago
        Right so, > I've also been using Linux for years (Arch, btw) and never had an update break my install or cause issues Is an anecdote that is worthy of being attacked with my own, given the context that people might come away thinking that Arch updates do not break their system.. right?
        akimbostrawman 1y ago
        Right, just make sure that anecdote actually applies.
- majkinetor 1y ago
  Yeah, arch is basically unusable without AUR, so that is semantic difference without grounding in reality. Many people use Arch becuase of its package manager.
  - akimbostrawman 1y ago
    That is maybe how you feel but it obviously works just fine without it otherwise it would not be explicitly separated. I do not have more than a handful AUR packages none of which are essential or without alternative. >Many people use Arch because of its package manager True pacman is great but that has nothing to do with the AUR.
Shikadi 1y ago
I've had far more Ubuntu distro upgrades break than succeed, and often without solutions online other than reinstall. Haven't had that issue with Arch since 2011. I use Ubuntu for work and Arch for personal so I've basically been using both full time for over a decade. Anecdotes be anecdotes

vel0city 1y ago

I've been using Linux for decades and have had many times of installing updates breaking a machine to the point where I'd rather just reimage than try and fix the pile of issues. So many times of installing updates and now all the graphics don't work, now audio is broken, where did my network adapters go, etc. To the point that now most Linux things I touch, when I want to update I just deploy a fresh image rather than actually install updates. I can't really trust the state of the machine after a year of quietly installing updates. A line item on my agenda today is actually helping a team figure out why when they do a release upgrade on their pet Ubuntu VM practically everything they care about on the box breaks and helping them plan out strategies to un-pet these workloads. I've had a good share of Windows updates making a mess of things, don't get me wrong. But I've had plenty of bad updates in Linux over the years.

bee_rider 1y ago

Using a rolling release distro is not really a fair comparison. Little frequent updates are a lot easier than giant catastrophic ones.