• ikon106@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    13 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
      ·
      11 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
        ·
        10 hours ago

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

        • porl@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 hours ago

          It’s extremely rare. Big breaking updates are normally shown in the arch news. Usually they just require a command or two to remove a conflicting package before the update. I think there’s been a few in the last year, but on the flip side I never got a clean distro update on anything but Debian and they usually took a lot more effort to clean up.

          Where it may be “unstable” is if a specific program updates (upstream) with some major change or other, whereas another distro might hold off a while.

        • felsiq@piefed.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 hours ago

          Not the same person, but my updates take like 30s (if I don’t go looking at what changed) and happen whenever I want. We’re not talking windows updates here, just sudo pacman -Syu, seeing the list of what’s changing (etc firefox went up a version? Cool), and then saying “sure” if it looks good to me. Don’t even need to restart all the time, although I tend to do updates before turning my pc off anyway so I nearly always do.

          Packages tend to use the latest stable version of their software, unless you choose a beta branch instead, so if anything I think I’ve run into less broken software than on Debian-based distros because you don’t get bugs that were fixed a week ago but haven’t made it into the official apt repository version yet. If there is a bug, you can just not upgrade that package if you know about it in advance or just downgrade it until they release a fix (I’ve never had to do this but iirc you can pin a version in pacman).

          Not suggesting to jump ship if you’re happy with your current distro, but arch is a great learning experience to set up and once you have a good system running it’s absolutely rock solid. Just don’t expect to install it in fifteen minutes like other distros, if you want a good install you have to do all the reading yourself (arch wiki is priceless) to make informed choices because you’re entirely responsible for piecing together your own OS.

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

            Thank you! That makes sense. I’m on Windows 11 and therefore not happy with my current “distro” 😅 I know Arch isn’t recommended for beginners, but I hope that if I take it slow and read a lot, I might survive.