← Back to context

Comment by simion314

5 years ago

>Any way the main benefit of Arch is that it's close to stable upstream repose, instead of sometimes lacking not just month but even years behind wrt. the version of libraries they ship.

There is a downside that most Arch users omit intentionally, when you get latest GNOME/App with the cool new bug fixes and cool new features you also get the new not cool bugs and the new redesign/feature removal. This can cause the system not to boot if the kernel/graphics driver is updated in incompatible ways.

LTS distros with years behind features is in many casea a feature many appreciate. 2

11 comments

simion314

Reply
dathinab  5 years ago

I've been using Arch since ~8 years and at least for me updates breaking stuff is rare, and every time it happens there was a simple easy work around the problem (like downgrading for a day or two at which point the bug was fixed).

Through without question a major reason why the (few) problems I did ran into haven't been a problem was due to my understanding of Linux.

The is the misconception that Arch is bleeding edge, it's not. It's the latest stable releases of the software it composed of. And at least for my use cast the amount of headache it reduces by doing so far outweighs the amount of problems I ran into (which are in my experience few, and iff you have the necessary skills normally easy to work around).

  • simion314  5 years ago

    I believer you, what I dislike is those people that push everyone into Arch and omit to add the things you added.

    I bet that a vanilla LTS where you only update for security reason is more stable and risk free.

    • dathinab  5 years ago

      Tbh. I would never directly(1) recommend arch to anyone for a simple reason, it requires some linux/unix skills to be worth it.

      If you have the skills I don't need to directly recommend it to you, you already know it.

      If you don't know it you likely don't have the necessary skills.

      Through by being opinionated about the choice of packages and way of setup and adding a QA Team, more CI and slightly delayed (non-security) updates (like 1 day or two) you probably could produce a grate experience even for casual users. Hm, but then as a company producing a custom Linux distro is rarely worth it and often special purpose enough to not care about the benefits this approach would bring.

      (1): But still indirectly advertise it.

      1 reply →

heywire  5 years ago

I’ve been using the Arch Linux Archive as a way to stick with a known stable system for a few weeks until I have time to dedicate to a system upgrade and correcting any issues that arise.

  • simion314  5 years ago

    How do you undo an app or subsystem after an update you don't like?

    For example I upgrade my IDE but not in place, I keep previous version just in case the new one is buggy or they again moved shit around. For my main system I am on LTS and I upgrade if there is a need and not to get high on version numbers. For example I tested new versions of kernels and video drivers and end up on what feels right for me and stopped there. Sometimes the new video driver is more unstable then the older ones so I would never do a driver update without having a good reason and time to evaluate it.