> Arch is one of the most horrible rolling distros

We've had different experiences. I've been using Arch for about 8 years and have had to scour the forums no more than thrice to find the magic incantations to fix a broken package manager. In all cases, the system was saved without a reinstall. However, it is certainly painful when pacman breaks.

    $ cat /etc/issue
    Antergos Linux \r (\l)

;-)

▲ AuthAuth 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Thats a very different experience from me. I've had quite a few broken packages easily over 10 in the last year and a half. It was easy enough to find them and roll them back but I dont know how people can say arch is stable. Do you update regularly?

	▲	thangalin 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		> Do you update regularly? Sometimes once a month, sometimes once a week, sometimes more if there's a critical CVE.

▲ jorvi 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't want to manually have to scroll through all the release logs on every single upgrade, in case their might be a landmine in there this time. Nor does any rational person that values their time or their system stability.

It is a million times more sane to have a package manager throw a warning or an error when a breaking change is about to be applied, rather than just YOLO the breaking change and pray people read the release log.

It is one of the most stupid policies ever, and the main reason why I will steer everyone away from Arch forever. Once bitten, twice shy.

▲

sltkr 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

I've been using Arch Linux for over a decade and have literally never once consulted release logs, and never got into any serious trouble.

I do subscribe to the arch-announce mailing list which warns of breaking changes, but that receives around 10 messages per year, and the vast majority aren't actually all that important.

I've also gone multiple months between updates and didn't have any problems there either.

The idea that Arch Linux breaks all the time is just complete nonsense.

▲

imp0cat 4 days ago | parent [-]

His point is that Arch will break the system without any warning during package upgrade.

	▲	s_ting765 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		A warning will dissuade users from upgrading their system instead of doing the manual intervention.

▲

yjftsjthsd-h 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

By way of example, Gentoo's `eselect news` is pretty good https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Eselect#News

▲ snvzz 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Actual Arch on two machines, no issues. The older one I've been using for 15 years now.

▲ mynegation 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That’s three times too many. I have been running an Ubuntu server at home for 10 years and went through probably 4 LTS releases and the number of times apt flaked out on me - exactly zero.

▲

TheAceOfHearts 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

I'm running Ubuntu 24.10 and they broke the upgrade to 25.04 if you're using ZFS on the boot drive. Their solution was to prevent the upgrade from running, and basically leave behind anyone stuck on 24.10 to figure it out for themselves.

▲

skeledrew 4 days ago | parent [-]

TBF, they can't be expected to support every potential configuration users may think of.

	▲	TheAceOfHearts 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		If they weren't going to support the feature why did they provide it as an option on the installer without any warnings or disclaimers? This isn't some bespoke feature that I hacked together, it's part of the official installer. If I had known it wasn't fully supported then I wouldn't have used it.

▲

OJFord 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

So not rolling? I too have never had to open Windows Task Manager on macOS.

▲ glitchc 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

YMMV. Manjaro's broken on me multiple times. I leave a machine alone for two years and it's next upgrade is almost guaranteed to break something.

▲

LambdaComplex 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Manjaro is not Arch, and its maintainers have repeatedly shown that they aren't very good at maintaining a distro: https://github.com/arindas/manjarno

▲

glitchc 3 days ago | parent [-]

This is revisionist at best. Manjaro has always been portrayed as Arch with a GUI by both sets of maintainers.

	▲	LambdaComplex 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Maybe by Manjaro's maintainers, but certainly not by Arch's. I've been using Arch for a little over a decade. The position that I've always seen in the official IRC channel is that forks such as Manjaro are explicitly not Arch. Here's one of the oldest versions of the "Arch-based distributions" page on the wiki. It has a notice at the top that says that forks are not supported by the community or developers: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Arch-based_distri...
	▲	3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]

▲

whatevaa 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Two years with no uptes on rolling release is not a good idea. Two years with no updates for anything not connected to the internet is not a good idea.

	▲	glitchc 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		I didn't say anything about the machine being on the internet persistently. It's a laptop sitting in storage mostly. The updates are for when it comes out of hiding.

▲

bmicraft 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Arch doesn't support more than 6(?) months between upgrades, maybe Manjaro is the same.

▲

glitchc 3 days ago | parent [-]

I guess my only option is to switch to a more stable distro such as Debian or SUSE. Manjaro has always been touted as a very light distro, good for old machines, but its instability makes it a no-go.

	▲	bmicraft 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		The choice of distro makes almost no difference w.r.t. performance on old hardware, as long as it's still supported. The only (real but small) difference is between desktop environments and their choice of default apps (eg. file manager).