nixCraft 🐧😂
Janik Ramírez@nixCraft I think updating Arch gives the same result in some point of time...
doragasu@the_codifier @nixCraft Not if you take the effort of understanding what you install, update regularly (I do it once a week), read the news page if updater complains (that tells you what will break and how to update without breaking), you do a sane maintenance of pacnew files... My current arch desktop install is as old as the computer (7 years), 0 breakage.
It can be very stable, but it's true it takes some effort.
Admiral Snackbär@doragasu @the_codifier @nixCraft
... But that is pretty much the opposite of stability.
You wouldn't call a house stable, if you need to involve a civil engineer for every lightbulb change.
Arch can and will self-destruct at some point, and that's just not acceptable for anyone whose hobby isn't OS maintenance.
@AdmSnackbar @the_codifier @nixCraft For me it's stable if it doesn't break when you use it as intended. Arch is supposed to be used like that, the wiki will tell you.
@AdmSnackbar @the_codifier @nixCraft Also it will not self destruct by itself. When conflicting updates happen, it will refuse to update. If you still force the update (that requires manually setting the force flag and confirming later), yeah, it can break then.
@doragasu @the_codifier @nixCraft
Well, that's exactly my point.
Stability means, it won't destroy itself. But an Arch install will either require substantial effort for that, or be destroyed from third parties by being outdated and insecure.
If that's your hobby, perfectly fine. But calling it stable is weapons grade wishful thinking at best.