utnapishtimOct 19

My experience with Arch

https://sh.itjust.works/post/48222555

My experience with Arch - sh.itjust.works

Hello everyone, lately I got really into Linux. I installed it in every machine I have, but I still had to try Arch. From what people were saying online I thought that it was going to be a hard and impossible task. So I bought a Thinkpad for a hundred euros (x260 if you’re wondering) and I followed a guide on how to install Arch. I thought I was going to be using the terminal all the time, and had to type everything. No black screen of death, no prompt saying “Are you awake?” Matrix style, the pc didn’t breack, reality didn’t bend and just following simply the guide I had Arch running in fifhteen-twenty minutes no problem. Only the Network Manager wasn’t on were I rebooted after installation but it took five minutes to search online how to fix it. Everything works: bluetooth, internet, apps and so on. I could leave it as it is and I could just use it as any other pc. So all I’m saying is that I’m having a great time with Linux distros, the pain to learn how install repository and other things is really worth it. Every time I learn something more about my computer puts me more in control. So thank you Linux and its community.

Show threadwww-gem
Welcome :) The myth that “Arch isn’t user-friendly” will probably never die — and neither will “Arch is unstable.” I’m honestly relieved you didn’t dare push the door to join us 😏
If you ever switch machines, you can check how Arch is supported on tons of laptops here.
Laptop - ArchWiki

Oct 19 at 7:58pmWeb
Show threadCrisOct 19
My impression was always that the biggest issue is needing to pay attention to, and sometimes intervene in updates, is that not a thing with arch anymore?
Show threadporous_grey_matterOct 19
It does still happen occasionally that updates need some intervention, it is still policy that you should check the blog in case, but it’s only happened once in the last two years for me.
Show threadCrisOct 19

How often are you supposed to check the blog?

Edit: probably every time you’re about to do an update, sorry I’m sleepy lol

Show threaddeadcadeOct 20

The difference is rolling vs stable release.

Debian 13 is out, and it will stay exactly the same Debian 13 that it was when it released, even 5 years from now. The only changes are bugfixes, security patches, etc. No new features. This means you can basically do unattended sudo apt update && sudo apt upgrade with no problems. By the time Debian 14 comes out, there will have been a ton of changes to upstream software, Updating from 13 to 14 might be a one-click fix, or it might take effort fixing configs and ensuring the new software works.

Arch Linux is rolling release, it does not have version numbers, and does not hold back a major package update just “because it changes things”. This means basically every update might change things, and that can require intervention. If the Arch Linux team is aware of required intervention, it will be put on the Arch News. This is often just one or two commands. The possibility of intervention being required means unattended upgrades are a no-go on Arch, but that’s pretty much it.

If you don’t update your system for say, a year, everything that’s changed in that time will change all at once. This is often still a few commands to fix, but could be more depending on what updated exactly. Updating regularly is reccomended, because it’s easier to tell what exactly changed between updates, and thus easier to track down where a problem originates from.

Show threadCrisOct 20

For general users, updates changing things is pretty much never an issue, which is why typical end users always use the word “stable” to convey it’s more colloquial meaning of “not going to break on me”, rather than the technical definition sys admins use it to describe.

If arch didn’t have breaking changes I don’t think users would ever really mind it being rolling release, which is how you get the term “stable rolling release” for rolling distros that hold updates for long enough to generally prevent breakage, like void or tumbleweed

To the original commenter’s point, as a more design and ux person I think being able to do unattended upgrades and not get any errors or stuff you have to fix is kinda important. Which is why I find it a tad irksome when technical folks act like everyone and their grandma should run arch cause it’s never given them issues. It is awesome that it sounds like it’s improved so much though!

Maybe I’ll try arch some time and see if I’ve progressed enough to not find managing my system a bit more bothersome

Show threadturdasOct 19

The reason people say that Arch is unstable is that you are expected to read the news on the website before every update or else your system is liable to be broken – and sometimes it will break in spite of that. Oh, and the expectation is that you’ll be updating multiple times per week, and if you don’t, you will soon be in a situation where to install any package you must update your entire system.

Most other distros place no such expectations on the user.

Show threadranzispaOct 19
One time I did not update an arch system for something like 6 months… You can’t immagine the troubles I needed to go through to get it into a working state.
Show threadLeFantomeOct 23

I have had multiple systems with no updates for a year.

The biggest pain is always that the keyring is out of date and it does not want to install packages signed with newer keys. Once you have dealt with that once or twice, it is quick and easy to resolve and the rest of the update generally just works.

Show threadlentildropOct 22

I hardly ever read the news and I update like once every one to two weeks, and I’m not sure I’ve ever had a system breaking bug introduced by an update. I’ve had small bugs that break UI stuff but nothing that really impairs my ability to use the computer.

I have run into all sorts of weird issues trying to run games or programs not packaged to run on Arch but those are usually solvable with tinkering and some outside advice.

Arch has just never really felt inherently unstable to me, IMO. If you have patience for tinkering and customizing Arch is a great distro that gives you a ton of control over your system + has a fantastic body of documentation.

Show threadLeFantomeOct 23

I agree with you completely. I am sure you deal with these minor issues quickly and barely notice them half the time.

But users of other distros would find it intolerable to have to deal with these small tweaks on any given day. “My computer is a tool” they will say and “it just needs to work”.

Fair enough. But then they turn around and fight bugs and limitations that were solved for Arch users months or even years ago.

And they fight to install software not in the repos, often making their overall system less reliable in the process.

I prefer the stability of Arch over the stability of Debian thank you.

Show threadLeFantomeOct 23

The problem is that “stable” means two different things in Linux.

It can mean “reliable” as in it does not crash. I think that is what most of us think of.

However, It more often mean “static” or “unchanging”.

Take Debian Stable. It is “stable” because the software versions rarely change outside of security updates. This does not mean it does not crash. It does not mean it does not have bugs. It means you can depend on it to behave tomorrow like it does today. Design problem not the software installed? They are not getting fixed. As an example, you will see that the people saying Wayland does not work are almost always Debian users because they are using software from 2 - 3 years ago. Debian 13 has improved things but the NVIDIA drivers are from 2 years ago even now. And if KDE has fixed a lot of bugs, that does not mean Debian gets those updates.

Arch on the other hand updates its packages constantly to the latest to very recent versions. The behaviour of your Arch system changes all the time as new versions of software are installed. You may like this or you may not but this is “unstable” using Debian’s definition.

From the point of view of robustness, Arch users often have a better experience than Debian users. Things more often “just work” due either to new features or because issues have been resolved in recent versions. Rapidly developing software, let’s take Wayland or NVIDIA again, will often work dramatically better on Arch. However, every update has the potential to break something. And so, on Arch, you are certainly more likely to encounter breakage. Often these problems are very short-lived with fixes appearing quickly. This means that, even if something did break, many Arch users will not even know.

Anyway, this is my take Arch vs Debian:

  • Arch is more “robust” (fewer problems on a typical day)
  • Arch is very reliable but less reliable than Debian (updates rarely break but they can)
  • Arch behaviour changes much more often (more features sooner but also more learning required and occasionally features lost or “get worse”)

So, it all depends on what we mean by stable