| > Can an Arch person explain to me why their approach is worth it over something with a more comprehensive package manager like apt or dnf? Can you explain to me how dnf or apt is more comprehensive than pacman? I use all three: arch on my laptop, fedora on my desktop, ubuntu on my work laptop. I do not see the difference in comprehensiveness. There are some house cleaning tasks pacman won't automatically do for you because doing so could break things you rely on. The same is true on fedora. It'll leave configs untouched, unless you run rpmconf which might then just break your stuff: > If you use rpmconf to upgrade the system configuration files supplied with the upgraded packages then some configuration files may change. After the upgrade you should verify /etc/ssh/sshd_config, /etc/nsswitch.conf, /etc/ntp.conf and others are expected. For example, if OpenSSH is upgraded then sshd_config reverts to the default package configuration. The default package configuration does not enable public key authentication, and allows password authentication. (From https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/dnf-system-u...) The problem is ultimately one of churn, and how the system deals with it. Anecdotally Ubuntu tries to deal with it harder than the others, and my experience is that Ubuntu breaks (or suddenly stops behaving the way you had it configured) the most during updates. The others break less but require some attention from you. Some of the churn is caused by distros, some of it is caused by the upstream projects. Churn is big in the Linux world. |