this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2024
320 points (87.7% liked)
linuxmemes
21440 readers
916 users here now
Hint: :q!
Sister communities:
Community rules (click to expand)
1. Follow the site-wide rules
- Instance-wide TOS: https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
- Lemmy code of conduct: https://join-lemmy.org/docs/code_of_conduct.html
2. Be civil
- Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
- Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.
- Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
- Bigotry will not be tolerated.
- These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.
3. Post Linux-related content
- Including Unix and BSD.
- Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of
sudoin Windows. - No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
4. No recent reposts
- Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.
Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
Important: never execute code or follow advice that you don't understand or can't verify, especially here. The word of the day is credibility. This is a meme community -- even the most helpful comments might just be shitposts that can damage your system. Be aware, be smart, don't fork-bomb your computer.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What precaution would you expect OP to would've done though? A fallback kernel would be my guess - that's something many casual oriented distro do out of the box basically. . I read your post as "you're right, don't use arch" - something btw which I tend to agree with although I wouldn't say that's because of the precautions.
I use arch because there's no black box magic. For an end user who expects or wants that... Yes, arch might not be the right choice.
I don't think lack of precaution was the issue here given that it was an unexpected power failure, but it is a fairly easy fix with a chroot.
Oh agreed! That's why I'm with OP actually that arch might not be the right distro to go for.
The person I replied to basically said "that's what you deserve for not doing it properly" if I understood it correctly - that's what I'm confused about as well.
Yeah it seems half the commenters missed OP's clarifying comment and just think he started a kernel update with 2% battery life.
Hehe true. And even that happened to me after a couple of tired "Syu enter". But then again I learned something new with nearly every repair!
If you know your battery is shot and you don’t have a way to save your install if the power goes out, then you just don’t update. There are plenty of ways to protect against this that have already been mentioned (battery backup, backup kernel, etc). OP was just playing with fire.
That's kind of overzealous. I would expect most desktop users to run kernel updates without being plugged into a UPS, this is functionally identical. It's not like it's an unrecoverable error, but yeah if you're updating a critical system you should have redundancies in place.
How would you set up a fallback kernel in Arch?
I have set up an lts kernel in addition to the zen I use by default. See:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Kernel
Disclaimer: this only works when something with image creation goes wrong with an update. Which didn't happen to me ever - unless I did a mistake or tested some kernel stuff. I only had bootloader errors when I screwed up pacman though. The fallback kernel in that case is on a USB stick...