• Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    Arch is unstable and pacman is prone to breakage. That’s not necessarily bad for some people but for people who want everything to be reliable and stable it is problematic

    • yianiris@kafeneio.social
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      And you are either an ubuntu/debian troll or pretending to know something.
      Can you show us some reference of how/when pacman broke last?

      Arch-testing has been more stable than sid ever was, and it was rare that sid ever broke.

      And I haven’t used systemd EVER, unless that is where ALL the instability comes from, and I missed it, from wheezy to arch-testing

      @possiblylinux127

      • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Arch uses systemd so you haven’t use Arch if you haven’t used systemd. That probably doesn’t change anything. You are welcome to not use systemd I could care less.

        Arch is unstable because it ships packages that are brand new compared to Debian stable (not sid) that ships packages that have been tested for 2 years. Debian also used to only be free software but that has changed as of recently. (Stability and security are the exception)

        Debian sid is the Debian unstable branch which has little to no testing. Software goes from there into the testing branch before finally making it into stable. By the time that happens its unlikely you will ever find a bug as the vast majority of the bugs have been found.

        On the other hand, Arch pulls the packages as soon as possible as its user base prefers newer packages over stability. That’s fine but to say it is somehow more stable is incorrect. For instance, here are some recent issue on Arch:

        https://archlinux.org/news/openblas-0323-2-update-requires-manual-intervention/

        https://archlinux.org/news/incoming-changes-in-jdk-jre-21-packages-may-require-manual-intervention/

        https://www.tomshardware.com/news/linux-kernel-update-kills-laptop-displays

        My point here isn’t to say Arch is bad. My point is that you can’t just leave Arch by itself for years on auto update without issue. Updating Arch often requires reading of changes and manual fixes. Some people enjoy that, others do not.

      • Shareni@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago
        • bad package update, can’t boot (GRUB)

        • didn’t update in a few weeks, update, can’t boot

        • update script on endeavour gave up at some point, and so I couldn’t boot if I didn’t manually mkinitcpio after updating

        I used it for 2+ years on multiple devices, and almost never updated without having a flash drive nearby to arch-chroot. I ran Mint before that for about the same time, it never crashed let alone failed to boot. I’m now on MX+Nix and get the best of both worlds.