301
Realizing Arch isn't for me after updating broke VLC (lemmy.sdf.org)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/linux@lemmy.ml
268 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I realized my VLC was broke some point in the week after updating Arch. I spend time troubleshooting then find a forum post with replies from an Arch moderator saying they knew it would happen and it's my fault for not wanting to read through pages of changelogs. Another mod post says they won't announce that on the RSS feed either. I thought I was doing good by following the RSS but I guess that's not enough.

I've been happily using Arch for 5 years but after reading those posts I've decided to look for a different distro. Does anyone have recommendations for the closest I can get to Arch but with a different attitude around updating?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

I'm running Arch for a very long time. I agree this is not a distro for general audience. I disagree, however, that it is not stable. When I'm doing work I don't update my system. I enjoy my stable configuration and when I have time, I do update, I curiously watch which amazing foss software had an update. And I try them. I check my new firefox. I check gimp's new features. etc.. or if I have to do something I easily fix it, like in no time because I know my OS. Then I enjoy my stable system again.

Do you want to know what's unstable? When I had my new AMD GPU that I built my own kernel for, because the driver wasn't in mainline. And it randomly crashed the system. That's unstable.

Or when I installed my 3rd DE in ubuntu and apt couldn't deal with it, it somehow removed X.org. And I couldn't fix it. That's also something I don't want. Arch updates are much better than this.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Guess we simply apply different meaning to the word "stable". (you do you, though, and if it's alright with your workflow, yay!)

    To me, stable means reliably working without any special maintenance. Arch requires you to update once in a while (otherwise your next update might get borked), and when you update, you may have to resolve conflicts and do manual interventions.

    Right now, I run OpenSUSE Slowroll (beta, not released yet) on one of my machines and EndeavourOS on the other. The former recently had to update 1460 elements, and one intervention was required - package manager asked me if I want to hold one package for a while to avoid potential dependency issues. Later, it was fixed, and otherwise it went without a hitch. This is the worst behavior I've seen on this distribution, and so to me it renders "acceptably unstable" for general use (although I wouldn't give that to my grandma).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent