Log in
| 1 | ||
| 1 | ||
| 1 | ||
| 1 | ||
| 1 |
I know @x0x7 runs Arch and achieves more stability by constantly updating his OS. It's a nice thing about using a rolling release. It's one reason to choose Debian Testing over Stable. With fixed releases, you need to upgrade to the new release periodically and that can go wrong, while with a rolling release you have done those updates incrementally.
However, that doesn't mean you need to use a bleeding edge system. It's good to have your software tested for you. Debian Testing uses a repository of software that has been testing in Debian Sid for a while and then gets the first okay for entering into a stable system. This is a good balance between things.
I make this post because Artix was recommended to @JasonCarswell. Do not use Artix unless you want to spend a lot of time maintaining your system. Okay you've used Linux in the past but I'm giving you a heads-up, you will have to tinker. I'm not even recommending Debian Testing to you. I'm simply making this post to note that that gives the best of both worlds, theoretically speaking.
Ideally, a system is built such that it doesn't break when you upgrade, or it can upgrade safely while keeping the current configuration intact. Atomic distros do that and that's a good development. Personally, I like my system to be simple, such that I can know it inside out. Atomic distros add a layer of complexity.
The next best thing is a release cycle where you only have to upgrade now and then. Debian Stable has standard support for 3 years and then an additional 2 years of LTS. The latter are just security updates. This is good on paper but they change the system a lot. They have implemented systemd a long time ago and now you need to use a fork to avoid it, but the fork still has elogind and to avoid that you need to use another fork called antix which, as @Gr3vi pointed out, is weird. It has a weird interface. I cannot right click on the network manager icon and add a VPN that way, I need to jump through hoops. The interface is really minimalistic. I don't like it.
This is why I use Slackware. It too uses a stable release cycle and has often provided security updates for 10+ years. It's very similar to Apple in this aspect: there is no official release policy, just a promise, but the LTS track record is good. But beyond this, they are very conservative in adopting change so that you don't have to relearn how everything works incrementally. They didn't switch to systemd to begin with so that you don't have to use a fork. Although, admittedly, they do use elogind. Antix is in fact notable for patching all the software to not need elogind and in that aspect it's an important distro.
Okay the post is long enough bye.
Edit: note that there's a difference between Artix and Antix. The former is Arch without systemd while the latter (which I mention once at the end) is Debian without systemd (but also made more lightweight and with tools to run as a live system purely from a USB stick).
That's the beauty of Linux and OSS; choice. I remember about twenty years ago using Suse. It had the best installer and YAST was a powerful configuration tool. Mandrake was nice as well but like Suse, I didn't like the package manager and .rpm files. A lot of dependency issues back then. I saw you mention PCLinux OS in chat. I used it and it worked well at the time(2004-2005). It was a bit similar to Mandrake and was the distro that gave me the least issues until Mint came along. As long as it works and it's stable I'm happy. I'd still recommend Manjaro as it's given me a hassle-free experience and it was pretty solid and fast. I've had months and months of uptime and it would always perform flawlessly though RAM usage is a bit lower with MX but that's probably due to using XFCE instead of KDE.
You do realize that Arch and Artix have testing repos right? In my experience they do a better job.
I don't constantly update my system. Like not at all. I have a total of 5 Artix systems I'm running, and several ubuntu servers. All of the arch ones have different update frequencies. All of them are stable. All of them I can trust to install new software without borking. All of the ubuntu ones I wish were Artix because I would have more confidence I could upgrade software and add new things without borking it if it were Artix instead of Ubuntu. You just have to update pacman before installing new software. I wish it wouldn't let you. It's the one gotcha.
The one reason it doesn't force correct usage is that if you've updated in the last couple of days you are good to install new things without updating. So if it forced upgrading for each individual package even when it wasn't needed that would get old. Thankfully it doesn't. Just don't install anything new if you haven't updated in the last week (a week is chancing it). Even in the case that you chanced it and get bit, it isn't that hard to fix. AI can guide you through fixing it in 5 minutes. It will be a corrupted initramfs or mismatched kernel. Boot in a live cd. artix-chroot /mnt/thedrive. pacman -S linux.
Artix is not bleeding edge. Not even close. They have testing repos you could install from, but people don't. Modern open source also has version staging on the dev side. So by the time it gets install in Artix it is months old. But critically, none of the software is years old an incompatable with all other new software, creating a needless dependency alignment window problem that can't be tested across all permutations of software that could be installed. Ubuntu and debian are setting up an unneccissary hard problem that they also happen to suck at.
Jason 100% install Artix or an easier Arch system. Larry is always complaining about Linux and how none of his systems work. There is a reason. There is a reason experienced people run Arch. The common though flase narrative is that those people are further along a learning curve and can handle it. The more accurate narrative is experienced people learn what doesn't give them problems and want fewer problems, the same as new people. But they have the experience to actually know what causes fewer problems. Experienced people also do productive things with their system and don't have time to fix Ubuntu constantly. They are done doing personal computer fixing and want something that just works (but in the linux case just works without restricting them ala mac or windows).
Ubuntu and debian decided long ago they want to be a stable production system, back when they though they could be the non-enterprise enterprise and take market share away from Redhat. Actually they succeeded at that. But their model isn't as tuned as they claim it is for desktop linux. A personal instance of desktop linux is a lot more dynamic and needs to be fluid without complaining or breaking when you ask it to be fluid. That's not what Ubuntu is.
Everyone who is experienced who wants to run desktop linux is using an Arch based system. There is a reason for that. It is the modern and correct way to do things. Everyone should be having smooth installs of new software. It's stable as fuck. There is a reason why Valve uses it for SteamOS. They wouldn't be sticking it on devices if they thought rolling releases are dangerous.
Now the one disingenous thing I've said that maybe isn't that universal is promoting Artix. For you @JasonCarswell, actually install plain Arch or Cachy if it is easier, or Manjaro. The reason is Artix involves one extra step to make it good that I worry you might struggle with. And that is that Artix "unofficially" supports combining it with Arch repos, which you are going to want to do if you want all the software and compatability with most of the AUR. And adding that to the configs is a slightly technical step. Really the only thing you are getting with Artix is anti-systemd. So it may not be worth the tiny bit of extra setup for you. But I am 100% recommending you run an Arch based of some sort. It's not dangerously bleeding edge like Larry complains.
You can ask @Gr3vi if Cachy has a smooth install experience. I'm sure it does.
But if you do decided to install Artix, you can live with just the Artix packages for a bit and I can help you later get the Arch packages in and access to AUR setup. It will just be a few command lines. And adding one line to a config file.
Larry is already making a point that he may not realize he is making in the body of his text. He is saying one distro is still using "elogind" and to avoid some old version of a thing you actually need to use this other thing. How would you know that? These old systems with mixed era software require a high level of literacy of the available software and respective dependency alignment windows through history to avoid footguns like that. What Larry doesn't understand is that is a uniquely Debian/Ubuntu problem. He's like a fish that doesn't even see water. He thinks these are normal problems to deal with that are just a given in the Linux world. They don't have to be. I don't deal with that shit. I don't deal with any of the crap he complains about in the /s/LinSucks topic. I just use my system. It just works. It just installs any software I want. It never complains in that process or hands me another problem to solve.
Larry, just run Arch and quit torturing yourself. You fucked up one system and never tried it again. You've seen arch break once. I've seen debian based systems break 50 times or more. And I've seen them introduce struggles to get reasonable software installed for zero good reason 100s of times. I can count on one hand the number of times I had to actually struggle to install something on Arch (and usually it's something insanely obscure). Those same struggles add up on new people. If it's hard for me to get a system working the way I want on ubuntu then it's harder on new people. You always say how much it's a struggle to get linux to actually do what you want. Seems to track with the systems you use. I've had the same experiences on the same systems. The problem is you don't correlate it with what you are using because you haven't tried all of the major systems multiple times like I have. People who have enough experience to have multiple datapoints for each system (not one) all like Arch.
Making it personal was uncalled for in my opinion. I didn't give up on Arch after the incident at work and that wasn't my fault. That was expected breakage. Periodically there's manual intervention required after updating Arch (as one can tell from their news page) and as a newbie I struggled with that. My memory on that has faded, it wasn't that difficult to fix but the problem is that you're burdened with maintenance when you're trying to do other things. I'm giving Jason a heads-up about that since he's picking a distro based on their stance on age verification without considering user friendliness. My gripes with Linux have nothing to do with that and aren't distro-specific to begin with.
The Arch wiki differs with you on upgrading advice here:
So an update may require manual intervention, and waiting with updating too long makes it so these cases have accrued. It isn't as simple as just updating pacman and the rest of your system before installing a new package. If you regularly install a package then there's no difference, you're updating the system simply from your routine. But if you don't do that for months and then do it, you should expect problems simply from the passing of time because everything is in a constant state of flux. I once didn't update Arch for 6 months (this was later because, to reiterate, I didn't just run away from Arch over one incident) and when I finally wanted to, it straight out refused. The upgrade path was impossible. Same on my rpi which I only use occasionally. All the advice I've ever seen on this is that Arch is not for using and updating just occasionally, and my experience has confirmed that multiple times. You're the first person I've encountered who says such an upgrade will be hassle free or that Arch isn't bleeding edge. Seriously. For a stable rolling release, people use Debian Testing, Opensuse Tumbleweed or Gentoo. Arch has always been for people who are willing to handle breakage.
SteamOS isn't a desktop OS. The root fs is read-only by default and the users generally don't install new packages on it or use pacman at all. It gets system updates that are tested and pushed by Valve. It seems more like a fixed release cycle built on top of Arch. So this doesn't prove anything about Arch's stability.
Most of the discussion about stable vs testing is a matter of preference. A fixed release doesn't necessitate mixing old and new packages as the repositories provide older versions of software that are meant to work with your system, that's the point. Some people don't want all their software to be in a constant state of flux and want, at the least, a stable base system that's separate from additional software like how they distinguish between those on FreeBSD. I achieve something similar with Slackware which has a few thousand packages in its official repositories and then most additional software is built with Slackbuilds. If stable equated to breakage then I wouldn't be happy with Slackware. That's a system I run that doesn't break and that I don't have too many complaints about.
My point in the OP was there are two paths to choose which is dealing with problems upon upgrading to a new fixed release or dealing with small problems now and then with a rolling release and abandoning the hassle of fixed release cycles altogether. And so I was in fact pointing out an advantage to rolling releases much to your point, just that I don't think Arch is the right system for hassle-free, okay this much is clear. But I didn't intend it as a Debian vs Arch thing either, I'm not sure about your reading on that. It should be clear I like neither. The unnamed distro that has elogind is Devuan and I was saying that to avoid systemd altogether it's better to use antix rather than Devuan. Honestly your point regarding this is unclear. What part of this is a Debian/Ubuntu only thing? Arch has adopted systemd which is why a fork of it, Artix, must now be recommended instead. My larger point was that conservative distros make it so you don't have to jump from the one fork to the next because controversial changes are less likely to happen in the first place.
The issues I've run into with Linux don't make me inexperienced. It is exactly the opposite. I have from the beginning dealt with problems as they arose. I like tinkering. I switched back from macOS to GNU because I was missing the learning experience. But I'm not going to be a GNU/Linux fanboy just because it's my system of choice and I don't wish for others to constantly deal with system maintenance. My larger point about 'the Linsucks topic' is that, as people who value digital freedom, we can do a lot better than we're currently doing. There are some things about the GNU/Linux desktop that are unacceptable. This is exemplified by the fact that it isn't uncommon for a Linux user to reinstall their system a dozen times over a lifetime and entirely possible to do it multiple dozens of times. Imagine that this was the case with Windows or macOS. It'd be unacceptable. You install macOS and it starts aging after five years. That's how long I was using that system on my hackintosh. That's a longer continuity than for any GNU/Linux distro I've used. If you install a release of Windows, you're set for ten years with compatibility of applications built for that release across its lifetime. Why isn't it like that for GNU? Steve Jobs etc. had the right idea about UX. It's not the '70s anymore where only comp sci majors use computers. PCs are ubiquitous. People need to be able to trust their systems which requires free software. It isn't simply that people are reluctant to switch to Linux. The OS rightfully has a reputation of having a steep learning curve. This is why I mention Slackware which may just be a system one only needs to upgrade after 10 years, and why I mention atomic distros which also provide the separation between base and extra software that I mentioned and which allow system rollbacks or even multiple releases existing side by side. These are ideas we should strive for. If a rolling release model likewise lets users install the system once and be done with it then all the better but if my repeated experience with Arch as well as its reputation and even its official documentation contradict your claims then of course I'm going to be skeptical. I'm sure it will be bearable if you're his tech support though.