• SokathHisEyesOpen@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I have never had Arch break during an update. I’ve never had it crash. I’ve never encountered an issue I couldn’t resolve, and for that matter I don’t really encounter issues. Usually the only problems are that I haven’t installed a service that would usually come standard with another OS, so I have to check the wiki, install, and configure something.

      • SomeBoyo@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Stable doesn’t mean that the OS doesn’t break, but that the way it functions doesn’t change.

      • FaeDrifter@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I haven’t had Arch break during an update, but I always check the home page first, there are absolutely times my system would have broken during a blind update.

        Arch doesn’t support blind updates - it explicitly tells you to always check the home page before an update in case “out-of-the-ordinary” user intervention is required. https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/System_maintenance

        Basically, don’t run arch unless you’re willing to be a Linux system admin.

      • quat@lemmy.sdfeu.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I see. I asked because “stable” means different things in different distros. In Debian it means that interfaces and functionality in one version doesn’t change. If I set up a script that interacts with the system in various ways, parsing output, using certain binaries in certain ways etc, I should be able to trust that it works the same year after year with upgrades within the same release. To some people this is important, to some people it isn’t.