this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2024
473 points (84.3% liked)

linuxmemes

21226 readers
89 users here now

Hint: :q!

Sister communities:

Community rules (click to expand)

1. Follow the site-wide rules

2. Be civil
  • Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
  • Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.
  • Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
  • Bigotry will not be tolerated.
  • These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.
    • 3. Post Linux-related content
  • Including Unix and BSD.
  • Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of sudo in Windows.
  • No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
    • 4. No recent reposts
  • Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.

    • Please report posts and comments that break these rules!

    founded 1 year ago
    MODERATORS
    poopsmith@lemmy.world
    zephyr@lemmy.world
    rtxn@lemmy.world
    473
    Arch with XZ (lemmy.world)
    submitted 7 months ago by qwioeue@lemmy.world to c/linuxmemes@lemmy.world
    93 comments fedilink hide all child comments
     
    you are viewing a single comment's thread
    view the rest of the comments
    [–] germanatlas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 86 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    most stable

    How the hell is arch more stable than Debian?

    [–] chrash0@lemmy.world 11 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    i think it’s a matter of perspective. if i’m deploying some containers or servers on a system that has well defined dependencies then i think Debian wins in a stability argument.

    for me, i’m installing a bunch of experimental or bleeding edge stuff that is hard to manage in even a non LTS Debian system. i don’t need my CUDA drivers to be battle tested, and i don’t want to add a bunch of sketchy links to APT because i want to install a nightly version of neovim with my package manager. Arch makes that stuff simple, reliable, and stable, at least in comparison.

    [–] laurelraven@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 7 months ago

    "Stable" doesn't mean "doesn't crash", it means "low frequency of changes". Debian only makes changing updates every few years, and you can wait a few more years before even taking those changes without losing security support while Arch makes changing updates pretty much every time a package you have installed does.

    In no way is Arch more stable than Debian (other than maybe Debian Unstable/Sid, but even then it's likely a bit of a wash)

    [–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip -3 points 7 months ago

    If you are adding sources to Debian you are doing it wrong. Use flatpak or Distrobox although distrobox is still affected

    [–] Shareni@programming.dev 6 points 7 months ago

    Just Arch users being delusional. Every recent thread that had Arch mentioned in the comments has some variation of "Arch is the most stable distro" or "Stable distros have more issues than Arch".