If you want to talk about breakage we can, as long as you understand that's not what people mean when they say stable. About breakages Arch doesn't break that often, or at all, I can't recall a single time my system broke for an update or for something that was not entirely my fault.
Nibodhika
joined 2 years ago
No, you're still not understanding, say libX current version is 1.2.3 and we have two distros A (a stable distro) and B (an unstable distro). libX now releases 2.0.0, A remains on 1.2.3 B moves to 2.0.0. libX now releases 1.2.4 which despite being just a patch breaks everything. A update and breaks, B does not.
Stable just means stable API, it says nothing about system breakage. System breakage can happen regardless of stable API, and it's up to distro managers to not release a package that breaks their diatro, and the Arch ones are excellent at their job. An update breaking Arch is as likely to happen as on Ubuntu, but an upgrade on Arch can break other stuff which on Ubuntu can only happen when doing a version upgrade.
Again, stable doesn't mean what you think it means. An unstable system is not one that breaks, but one that doesn't keep a stable base. For example, Debian will not update a major version of almost anything, since that could potentially break dependencies, so it is stable even if it released patches as fast as Arch. On the other hand Arch is unstable, even if upgrading your system never broke anything because it can at any point change the version of any library you have installed.
it's a good beginner distro because getting thrown into deep water is how one learns to swim.
It's exactly like getting thrown into the deep end, if you don't know how to swim you'll drown. No one learns to swim by getting thrown to the deep end, and you're more likely to have a bad experience and be discouraged from trying it again.
every one of the Linux users that wants to be elitist about their distro runs arch based on how hard it is.
Which always makes me laugh because I use Arch mainly because I'm a lazy ass and want something easy to maintain.
Counter-counterpoint: Newcomers have enough things to learn and worry about without having to worry about unfucking a broken Arch installation.
Unfortunately it's not, on Reddit and now on Lemmy I see lots of people recommending it, they think the installer is the problem so they recommend something that has a GUI installer but is Arch afterwards, without realizing that creates more problem than it solves. And when pressed they even say stuff like "I started with Arch and was fine".
He's exaggerating, Arch has never broken the system with an update, but it has broken some components in the past. Most of the time you just rollback the package for a couple of days and you're fine to update again, but you can't expect a newbie in Linux to know that. For someone who's already having to adapt and learn a lot of stuff just to get their daily use adding instability to the system is a recipe for disaster.
Normal enough procedure for you and me, not for someone who's learning Linux and has no idea what any of that means and needs proton VPN for work.
This is what people need to get through their heads, you're an expert in the field, this comic applies https://xkcd.com/2501/
You're focusing too much on the installation process, if installing Arch was the whole of the problem things like Endeavor would be a good recommendation for newbies, but they're not. Arch has one giant flaw when it comes to being beginner friendly, and it's part of what makes it desirable for lots of us, and that is the bleeding edge rolling release model. As a newcomer you probably want something that works and is stable. Arch is not, and will never be, that, because the core philosophy is to be bleeding edge rolling release. If you're a newcomer who WANTS to have that and doesn't mind the learning curve then go ahead, but Linux has enough of a learning curve already, so it's better to get people started with something they can rely on and afterwards they can move to other stuff that might have different advantages/disadvantages.
We're talking about the general case here, I've recommend Arch to a newcomer in the past, he was very keen on learning and was happy with reading wikis to get there stuff sorted, but realistically most people who're learning a whole new OS don't want to ask questions and be told RTFM, and RTFM is core to the Arch philosophy.
He's exaggerating a little bit, but he's not entirely wrong. Arch does have bleeding edge packages, and if you haven't ran into an issue because of that you probably haven't been using it for long. Now, it almost never is system breaking bad, but it might be GUI breaking bad, or it might require editing configs by hand, and I've lost count of the amount of times I've seen people complain that an update broke something only to be a pacsave/pacnew file. Arch philosophy is incompatible with people who're learning the system now and just want stuff to work. Just because it worked for you doesn't mean it will for others.
view more: next ›
Nope, you're missing the point entirely. It's about versions not frequency. For example Ubuntu 16.04 used python 2, despite python 3 having been released for 8 years at that time and other distros like Arch having migrated to python 3 years before. Now, Python 2 still got regular updates that Ubuntu released, but Ubuntu 16.04 was maintained until 2021, whereas python 2 reached EOL in 2020, that means that for 1 year Ubuntu was using a deprecated and unmaintained version of python.
One could also make the argument that Arch broke a lot of stuff when they did that upgrade, and there's an argument there, but it's not as simple as receiving less frequent updates.