this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2024
884 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
71624 readers
3958 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Hopefully this would lead to a more (stable version of) ArchLinux.
Arch isn't unstable. Users mess it up by installing a bunch of random crap from the AUR or fiddling with system files.
SteamOS addresses this by making the root level filesystem immutable and guiding the user to install containerized (flatpak) apps.
Exactly. I ran Arch for over 5 years, and the only "instability" I had was:
That's really it. I've since moved to openSUSE Tumbleweed and an AMD GPU, largely because of built-in snapper support and their server-oriented distros (Leap and MicroOS), and it wasn't because Arch was "unstable" or anything like that. In fact, I had far fewer issues with Arch than I did with the other distros I used before: Ubuntu and Fedora. It turns out, as you understand Linux better, you tend to mess things up less.
I've been using a Steam Deck for almost a year damn near daily with maybe 1 OS crash that was largely due to a very unstable game. How is ArchLinux unstable, exactly?
This is not true though. Arch packages new program versions as soon as they can - for popular stuff this happens quickly but not everything updates quickly. And when they do publish a new package it goes to the testing repo for a short time before being promoted to the stable repos. If there is a problem with the package that they notice it will be held back until it can be solved. There is not a huge amount of testing that is done here as that is very time consuming and Arch do not have enough man power for this. But they also do not release much broken things at all. I have seen other distros like ubuntu cause far more havoc with a broken update then Arch ever has.
That's... a weird take. There are variants of Arch that focus on stability, if that's what you are after.
Which ones? I'm not aware of any besides specialised distros like SteamOS
Try #EndeavourOS!
they added some nice tools though. e.g. their pacdiff & meld tool eos-pacdiff is pretty nice. then there is a kernel manager and a pretty clever update-script / wrapper around pacman and yay (eos-update). saying it is just Arch + GUI is selling it a bit short imho.
It uses the Arch repos directly though
https://itsfoss.com/arch-based-linux-distros/
Manjaro for example. I also thought Garuda would be focused on stability but according to this article potentially no. So maybe just Manjaro, I do remember reading about something else like it though...
Manjaro has a stability track record miles worse than Arch, to the point where someone made a GitHub wiki called “Manjarno”.
Manjarno, manjarno
— as they say in Spain ...
Manjaro does "stability" by delaying everything by two weeks. That doesn't really help at all and might hurt you for security updates, because those will wait the same two weeks.
They also don't hold back the aur which causes problems if an aur package is expecting a system package of a particular version, if I understand correctly