78
Should I give Arch a shot?
(aussie.zone)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2023
78 points (89.8% liked)
Linux
48335 readers
895 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Disagree. Arch is not stable at all, couldn't be even if you wanted it to be.
Bugs and regressions get introduced upstream all the time, these have a tendency to slip from testing into the main repos.
Case in point, a recent glib2 update was causing NetworkManager to coredump sporadically.
And you have to always use downgrade. Example, the newer 6.5 kernels break thermald 2.5.4 for me, so I have to downgrade a step downwards.
Are these problems because of Arch? Not necessarily but the rolling release model has a role to play in these types of regressions & bugs.
An LTS type of distro will face other different types of bugs. Outdated software libraries/dependencies that are rendered incompatible etc.
But these are few and far between compared to rolling release where everything is in a constant state of change.