• porl@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    20 hours ago

    Nah, I looked at it and it doesn’t interest me. I like arch because, contrary to popular belief, it is quite stable (as in non crashing, not package versions) if you only install exactly what you need. I had way more stability issues on the more standard distros since they had so much extra stuff. Debian for servers every day though.

    Nix looks interesting in theory, but is a lot of work and too opinionated for me. Far from an expert though and have nothing against those that like it or any other distro.

    • ikon106@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      As someone considering getting Arch, what is unstable about the package versions? I thought the rolling release was a selling point, but does it actually make things more unstable?

      • porl@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        “unstable” as in changing regularly. Not in any way to do with how reliable it is (as another comment mentioned, that’s a better way to differentiate).

        I’ve had far fewer problems updating arch (once I had a clean system anyway) than I ever did trying to move through distribution updates on various other more “standard” ones.

        • ikon106@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          So the updates don’t tend to break things? Is it just annoying to constantly update?