so a common claim I see made is that arch is up to date than Debian but harder to maintain and easier to break. Is there a good sort of middle ground distro between the reliability of Debian and the up-to-date packages of arch?

  • Responsabilidade@lemmy.eco.br
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    I called it “stable enough”. For a home user, it’s stable enough. It’s a myth that Arch will break every update or it is unstable. Arch is as unstable or stable as you make it be.

    You also can’t setup automatic updates safely

    That’s partially true. If you’re trying to run a server, yeah, don’t set any automatic update. If you’re home user, you may do it and you’ll be fine, but be aware of your system.

    • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      It is updated almost everyday. That doesn’t seem very stable as it is constantly changing

      • Responsabilidade@lemmy.eco.br
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Well, it is. Is so stable that many of Arch users install Arch once and don’t have to format the computer again in years.

        Of course you can’t say that Arch is as stable as Debian, cause it’s not. But it’s totally unfair compare these distros, cause the use cases are completely different.

        Don’t use a ruler to measure how loud a sound is.