Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by celticmusic 2346 days ago
This is the proper response, imo.

Arch is rolling release and you take the good with the bad. The ones who try to defend arch as some paragon of stability miss the point that Arch's model is inherently unstable, but it comes with other benefits.

I'm the one who kicked off this entire conversation pointing out that arch is unstable, and it cracks me up watching silly people scramble to try and defend Arch as being some paragon of stability.

No, it's not. That's baked into its identity.
2 comments
bibyte 2346 days ago
Aside from patching the kernel I have done everything GP said. Just because the Arch wiki says it is unstable doesn't mean it always is. It just means Arch Linux can do breaking changes (systemd) without worrying about backwards compatibility. And FYI I wasn't defending Arch Linux. It just seems strange to me that everyone is having instability problems and I can't even reproduce it.

I also agree that you shouldn't run your production database on Arch Linux. It isn't made for workloads like that. But personally I find maintaining Arch Linux+"custom packages"(with AUR) easier then Debian+"latest packages"+"custom packages".

link
jcelerier 2346 days ago
That is only if you use the debian-specific definition of "stable" which is "does not change". The rest of the world thinks of "less bugs" when they think of stable software.
link
celticmusic 2346 days ago
yes, because randomly declaring the other person as using a different definition somehow adds to the conversation and changes their point.

Back here in reality, rolling release is less stable because more bugs in the software get through. And this is a reasonable expectation and not some magical fairyland where bugs never get written so being right up against the dev branch is as stable as being on the stable branch.

link
jcelerier 2346 days ago
> Back here in reality, rolling release is less stable because more bugs in the software get through.

We really live in two different software worlds. Every software I'm using has its number of bugs a purely decreasing function of time, especially in the "main" paths and use cases.

link
celticmusic 2346 days ago
Your statement is a logical paradox.

If it were true, it means there wouldn't be bugs in the first place because they wouldn't have gotten written. The very fact that the bugs got written implies new bugs can, and will, be introduced.

link