[dmix]

Arch is very stable when using mainline packages, which are the default packages...

This is "Arch is unstable" thing is very much a myth pushed forward by people who only dabbled with Arch once or twice then had it break, then completely dismissed it as unstable. Without first learning how to use it even at an intermediate level - not even expert.

I too had Arch break when I was a newbie but I learned quickly how not to and it's been incredibly stable ever since. Not worse than Debian and more so than Fedora in my experience.

In retrospect my actions which had broke it originally had little to do with ArchLinux itself but a general inexperience with Linux and over-eagerness when using beta software (which you have to opt in to, it's not default with Arch).

The end result is that I've come out of it a far better Linux user with skills highly applicable to Debian and other distros. It's a far easy place to learn Linux/Unix properly and become familiarized with the OS/dir structure/config than any other distro.

[vertex-four]

My experience as an experienced user of e.g. NixOS is that if you leave an Arch system alone for a couple of months and then try to update it, something will break horribly, because something will have changed in a non-backwards-compatible way and so I have to go and try to figure out what the new configuration should be, without good error messages. At least with NixOS, it’ll probably fail during the rebuild stage, rather than once you’ve restarted some random service or decided to reboot. I don’t really want to be doing that - I don’t have a love for system administration, I want a system which gets out of my way for me to do my work.

I don’t have to be careful about opting in to beta software or anything else with NixOS. If I want to try something, I can do so, and roll right back if it doesn’t work out. The destructive nature of Arch package installs and updates is its biggest flaw.

[RandomBK]

It is very much a matter of perspective. Arch is more than stable enough for personal use, but is highly unstable in the context of enterprise servers, especially compared with the likes of Debian and RHEL.

[dmix]

Fair enough, I was speaking from the perspective of desktop and small business use.

[mindslight]

Meh. Debian user of at least 15 years here. I found Arch quite refreshing, in that the setup felt like a modern Slackware (eg Wicd back when NetworkMangler was super-opaque). But the updates still made me queasy.

[anonacct37]

> This is "Arch is unstable" thing is very much a myth pushed forward by people who only dabbled with Arch once or twice then had it break, then completely dismissed it as unstable.

This accurately describes my experience. I stopped using Arch around the time git broke when I updated. I'm not clear what mistake I made. What level of Arch intermediate or expert level Arch knowledge is required to keep git working?

[pentagonpapers]

Not really. Arch has a strict upstream rule, they avoid patching or maintiain dead shit. So when the hellish time when KDE4.0 came out, they released it immediately. Anyone upgrading on a 3.5 system was severely disadvantages

[dmix]

Well, how did git "break" exactly?

[krutzger]

Edit: I've been told this meme is pretty accurate https://i.redd.it/jo3ylah5yti01.png

[KozmoNau7]

I used Arch for years and years, and it would just break sometimes on regular package updates. Nothing that couldn't be fixed with a live CD, but still annoying.