post
Why should my pc be stable if I'm not stable
wanda.jpg
I have questions now, about myself
I wonder how many Arch haters have actually used Arch and ever ran into a breaking issue.
In my 8 years of daily driving Arch, I have had 1 ever, and it was only bad bc I didn't know of BTRFS yet.
That happened 3 years in, and I went on a new distro-hopping spree in between, trying Fedora, NixOS, and others, and they had actual problems. Not "oh an update broke my system and was fixed in a day."
So now I've been back on Arch for more years.
This whole "Arch is always breaking and takes so much maintenance" is a myth. In reality, Arch is the most stable, because it packages everything Vanilla. Everything works the "standard" way. On Debian, things decay, and then some stuff that's new breaks with some stuff that's old. On Fedora, there is a Red-Hat tax: configs in weird places, strange scripts, software missing from main repos (COPR sucks btw). On Arch, it's just "normal" Linux; and that works
Yeah, I've noticed there's this subsection of people that have a completely wrong understanding of what the term "stable" means in the world of distros, and that it often creates as many problems as it solves, particularly on a desktop PC, or even worse, a gaming PC.
And for there record: Stable just means that things don't change. That doesn't mean it contains less bugs, is easier to use or is more secure. And on the flip side it doesn't mean that distros that are not "stable" are necessarily "unstable" in any shape or form.
Stable distros are great as targets for development, such as for containers. It also works great for end user environments because developers aren't trying to hit a moving target in terms of core libraries.
For a home user, having something more stable isn't very beneficial. If you want to have things stay the same for the next 2 years or so, then go for it.
It's one of the reasons why fedora works well, it has just a 6 month release cycle, so nothing gets too stale. More modern packaging formats like flatpak and appimage are changing things a bit since they don't rely on the system packages and can use something newer.
This mirrors my experience. I -Syu on a weekly basis, spend about 3 minutes doing pacnews, and then I'm done.
Interesting, my two friends with Arch keep breaking their system π They say its not their fault though!
I've used my current install for at least that long (going back further with Antergos) and you're correct about non-rolling options... I definitely would've had more pain with system upgrades and PPAs etc in those years.
That said, I think the Tamagotchi comparison probably makes sense in a way if it "dies" you probably did something "wrong" as on-paper it's also not difficult to maintain a digital pet either.
I'm using an outdated system, it's on three strikes:
-
Slow, shared internet for me. This adds friction to updates, and when I don't update as frequently as Arch expects this is the breakage you won't see.
-
I hate that updating today vs days-from-now might yield drastically different results. Admittedly the actual problem with my last few updates is that the reason-I-updated issues persisted.
-
The AUR is the biggest reason to use Arch. But use the AUR very carefully and not for system dependencies! Your graphics card is now legacy, so we put the driver on the AUR* ;)
Though I don't think these sort of problems are unfixable**, and other rolling distros probably do fix some of them but may also not have as good of a packaging system as Arch.
For instance I'm trying Void Linux on an old machine and have already ran into 2 (non-default) applications missing dependencies (which might be an issue with package maintainers, but also Void doesn't seem to track optional dependencies).
Tumbleweed/Slowroll would probably be a better fit for me, if not for Patterns.
* also if you update without switching, blank screen for you
** internet+GPU are also material problems as well, but those cannot get fixed today and probably will not be fixed next month either
Once I learned to make separate partitions for root, home, EFI, and then make routine backup of my package list, the update fears evaporate. Though with how CachyOS sets up btrfs snapshots by default now, it'd be pretty hard to deep fry an install beyond repair.
Ironically, it's the rolling release that's much more stable for me.
"Stable" distros often had a long and risky process of upgrading to the next major release.
Meanwhile, my Arch install has been pretty damn stable for over 10 years and went through several different PCs.
Fair, I'm always scared to upgrade to a new Debian release and the process is always painful. But that happens every couple years and I can take a week or two to look into it before doing it.
Every time I did pacman -Syu it was a Russian roulette. Most of the times everything was fine, but often enough there was a problem and something was broken and I had to spend a couple days figuring out what was the problem.
Sure bcachefs sounds like a pretty good idea, especially since the author thinks his AI coding assistant is sentient and a "her". What is it with file system maintainers and mental illness....
From what I know, the AI Assistant is the least of Kent Overstreet's problems. If anything it's a blessing he's fixanting on a random number generator instead of risking becoming Hans Raiser 2.0.
it seems thereβs elevated adverse behavior in people who work on things that combine deep hardware and software in general. see jailbreaking, emulation, hyprland, something
Why bcachefs over btrfs?
You're confusing two different meanings of stable. When people refer to "stable" distros such as Debian, they are referring to the meaning of stable as "unchanging," not the meaning of stable as "doesn't crash."
A rolling release distro by that definition cannot be stable.
βStableβ distros often had a long and risky process of upgrading to the next major release.
But you only do that once every 3-4 years, and you have months to carefully plan ahead.
Meanwhile, pacman -Syu could just provide you a major breaking multi-package upgrade of, say, your desktop environment on any random Tuesday. And then your only options are to either roll the dice and accept that update right then, and deal with all the breaking changes it may introduce, or not receive any updates at all, including security fixes, until you do.
I use Arch myself, and it's been pretty troublefree the past 2 years or so, but it was pretty rough around the Plasma 6 release, and there have been other rough periods as well, like when there were bluetooth/wifi and amdgpu regressions in the kernel.
My machines got borked every time I tried to do a Debian or Fedora dist-upgrade following the official guide, like 4 times total. Rolling updates on Arch require manual intervention once in a blue moon and haven't broken my system since I got rid of Nvidia
Ubuntu will actively break itself via snapd at like 2am on a Sunday.
Fedora could not do a fully system update on a 1GB VPS because dnf would OOM.
The dumbest thing I've seen Arch do in over a decade of using it is put RabbitMQ in its official repos while also rolling the latest version of Erlang which RabbitMQ doesn't support.
I have Arch (btw) on my laptop which is the tinkering machine that only I use, and a Win10/Linux dual-boot desktop which is the one other people use that I'm not allowed to break. I had Fedora Silverblue on there originally because I figured it would be pretty stable, but it honestly gave me nothing but trouble. I switched that one over to CachyOS and it's been smooth sailing ever since.
I had nothing but trouble with Suse, Fedora and DebΓan on my nightmare of a machine (laptop with AMD/nvidia GPUs) and honestly thought that was my lot until I hit upon Arch, which I have been more than happy with for over 3 years now.
Isn't Debian pretty clear that they don't support upgrades and it's likely to break if you try?
So I should just reinstall my system every two years? What is this, Windows?
No, you may be thinking about combining repos from different releases aka frankendebian? That isn't supported. Upgrades are definitely supported.
All I know is I was ready to go through the process to go from 12 to 13 and their documentation was full of disclaimers saying that it's not officially supported.
I did my best, and it broke.
Can you show me this documentation? Debian famously takes great care to ensure a good upgrade path with thorough instructions, like here https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/release-notes/upgrading.en.html but a typical desktop user would just edit apt repos and dist-upgrade.
I'm 99% sure I was going with their official documentation, which you linked just there.
I can't speak for what I read or how I interpreted it ~6 months ago, other than to say I understood upgrading was not supported and I was SOL that mine broke.
No, I've never used "sloppy backports" (as the only warning of lack of support I can currently find lists as a problem) and I knew that back then too, so that wasn't the issue.
I remember them having this in the docs in the past, recommending a reinstall instead. But it seems that is no longer the case.
OP never finished an Arch install
This implies an Arch install can ever legitimately be considered finished.
I boot my arch laptop once in a blue moon and update it. Its not 2002 anymore.
I use EndeavourOS for my primary gaming setup and will sometimes go a month or more before I remember to update again. Even with a relatively modern nVidia card, it seems to keep up just fine.
That being said, every vanilla Arch experience has been a disaster by the end and while itβs not the same situation as the meme, you very much have to have a ton of prior knowledge to get a system that actually feels personal and by the point itβs personal enough, getting support for your setup is nigh impossible because itβs so bespoke.
I love EndeavourOS. It's easily the most stable Linux experience I've had.
I use EndeavourOS as my main as well and never have issues as long as I stay away from the AUR.
Endeavouros is great! Just use Flatpack before the AUR. AUR is basically the Wild West and should only be used as a last resort.
What about you? When did you choose stability over the rolling release?
This is such sloppy engagement baiting. If it was just a hot take shitting all over one of the larger linux communities, that would be one thing, but to follow it up with a "let me know in the comments" just makes it all feel disingenuous and like somebody is being sponsored by NordVPN or Incogni to post their ragebait
Linux Mint user here, I have no idea if Arc is that complicated, I don't care really. All I need is a rock stable system where I can do things like developing, or just use it as "a computer".
I reboot every month or three, and feel extra happy after any interaction with m$ windows.
Life's good π
Arch really is the "Linux" of Linux users, complete with non users making shit up about it.
My arch system is so stable it's boring. Year after year, just runs. Doesn't slow down, doesn't install crapware.
So I dont know. I'm happy with it.
Fedora Immutable Desktop users when Arch and Debian users fight about whose system is more stable. (I use Fedora Kinoite btw)

This is a bit like saying "Honda Civics are Tamagotchis for car people" because there's a community of people who enjoy modifying them. The rest of us just drive, and they run perfectly fine if you're not doing a lot of invasive customization.
Arch is great for tweaking and customization, but it's also fine for a simpler use case.
In the past 3 years of using arch daily I've had to remove some renamed packages after an update once, thats about it
I've done 'real work' on computer with arch my whole professional career. I need a working computer with reasonably up to date programs not 3 to 10 years out of date because debian maintainers can't be bothered. On servers it's another story and there i would prefer rhel any day i would use debian.
15 year old install, one issue with crashes because of a regression in nvidia drivers that was solved after a month, I just rolled back till then.
Idk wtf you imagine people doing.
I'm just chiming in to not announce which distro I'm using.
-sent from Voyager on Android
Anyone remembers Gentoo? ;)
I remember Sabayon, which was Gentoo based. I liked it at the time, but compiling everything got old really fast.
Man, I tried Sabayon twice (both a long time ago) and quickly regretted it both times. In my experience, it was extremely fragile. I had used Gentoo at the time and had a mostly good time with it, and wanted to try something that set it up easily.
Gentoo now gives you the option to either compile or install a binary.
Why remember? Its my daily driver.
Yes! I used it as my main distro for a period. These days I'm all about Aurora/Bazzite, but I think I'd like to try it again.
wtf is this bullshit
and more importantly, why is it so condescending?!
It's meant to be an attempt at humor/sarcasm/engagement bait I think.
nixCraft (at cyberciti biz) is a site that has been slop publishing tutorials for everything ever possible with common unixy commands. And also shit like "30 Cool Open Source Software I Discovered in 2013". It often calls Unix "Linux", other times it uses both "Unix/Linux" for some reason, and sometimes it even says "on BSD, MacOS" for flags that only function on GNU coreutils. It started pre-AI, so it's like clickhole but for "installed Fedora yesterday" people (although I would imagine most traffic being "I've been using this for 24 years and forgot some flag").
I will preface this comment by saying I genuinely consider myself to be rather dumb, and slow to learn many things. With that being said, I've never had a single issue with the one arch based distro I have used (Cachy). I never had to really look up any docs, but to learn to install some specific programs. Overall it...just kinda worked? Only reason I switched to Fedora was for that extra peace of mind knowing its a bit more stable than rolling release, but still has more updated software than Debian based distros.
You can't compare arch to cachy. They're completely different experiences with different expectations.
Same.
Cachy is my intro to linux distro world and so far I love it. I spent an hour to set it up, then a day to host all that I wantrd, then maybe... 30 minutes maintenance since April?
My only gripe is that I don't know the Linux too well, so I sometimes struggle with it - e. g. I selfhost on my minipc a dedicated Satisfactory server ans I had to turn off wifi power protection mode (or smthing like that) to have stable ping.
I am pretty sure that this is something that Linux could've detected for me and asked me "hi, I've noticed you have regular long term many sources incoming/outgoing sessions, with your wifi power settings the connection quality might be suffering".
CachyOS are Arch have very different philosophies. On Cachy everything is made to be smooth. Arch is, as the post said, a Tamagotchi. But that is what we like about it : build your own ecosystem
Cachy is built on top of arch. There's no fundamental difference between the two
Yes! Honestly, this argument is so dumb. Is like arguing that a Honda Accord isn't the same car unless it has a manual transmission.
Yeah, automatic and manual do drive differently, but it doesn't stop being the same type of car just because they made shifting easier.
Et une partie du nouveau Paris a Γ©tΓ© construite sur les catacombes. Γa ne fait pas de Paris un ossuaire pour autant.
Arch really isn't that bad when you're not mucking around with the AUR. Debian is a little overkill for most normal users in respect to stability but it's good people have the freedom to do whatever the heck they want with their machines.
And then there's Fedora in the corner, quietly getting the best of both worlds.
OpenSUSE Tumbleweed..... my first love
ex arch user for 5 yrs
current fedora user since 2024
i've been getting a lot of "recommended" youtube videos on gentoo and nixos
send help plezz
I've made ~6 Arch systems at this point. None of them have randomly broken on me, none of them have broken after an update and to be honest have been solid. I have no idea where the narrative of Arch being able to destroy itself at any point came from, but I don't think it's true at all.
Its because people grab it randomly and then blindly install off the AUR
I was nervous to switch to arch at first because of all the jokes, but it's honestly been pretty slick. My servers are all on Debian but I put arch on my daily driver and the most "tomogachi tinkering" I've done has been Bluetooth nonsense, which is a general problem on most distros.

top 100 comments