so a common claim I see made is that arch is up to date than Debian but harder to maintain and easier to break. Is there a good sort of middle ground distro between the reliability of Debian and the up-to-date packages of arch?
so a common claim I see made is that arch is up to date than Debian but harder to maintain and easier to break. Is there a good sort of middle ground distro between the reliability of Debian and the up-to-date packages of arch?
It is very complicated for little value add. I would much rather use Ansible or bash scripting.
Ansible is useful in particular as it is much more repeatable and you can use Ansible pull to pull from a git repo
The thing is package management, resettability, rebasing/redeploying with a config file, and avoiding config file creep.
I broke 10 distros before, and of course I also learned, but I simply didnt break Fedora Atomic Desktops in 2 years or so.
But I layer about 20 packages, which is not a really nice process on Atomic, while it works for sure.
I use Fedora silver blue and it is mostly solid. However, it isn’t something I would jump into without an interest in immutable Linux or embedded systems.
I think Silverblue is the perfect distro for random computers you never manage.
Actually uBlue silverblue as they fix the like 5 issues there are, like an intelligent and actually automatic updater, flathub, drivers etc.