this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2024
473 points (84.3% liked)

linuxmemes

21222 readers
94 users here now

Hint: :q!

Sister communities:

Community rules (click to expand)

1. Follow the site-wide rules

2. Be civil
  • Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
  • Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.
  • Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
  • Bigotry will not be tolerated.
  • These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.
    • 3. Post Linux-related content
  • Including Unix and BSD.
  • Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of sudo in Windows.
  • No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
    • 4. No recent reposts
  • Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.

    • Please report posts and comments that break these rules!

    founded 1 year ago
    MODERATORS
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    473
    Arch with XZ (lemmy.world)
    submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
    93 comments fedilink hide all child comments
     
    you are viewing a single comment's thread
    view the rest of the comments
    [–] [email protected] 11 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    i think it’s a matter of perspective. if i’m deploying some containers or servers on a system that has well defined dependencies then i think Debian wins in a stability argument.

    for me, i’m installing a bunch of experimental or bleeding edge stuff that is hard to manage in even a non LTS Debian system. i don’t need my CUDA drivers to be battle tested, and i don’t want to add a bunch of sketchy links to APT because i want to install a nightly version of neovim with my package manager. Arch makes that stuff simple, reliable, and stable, at least in comparison.

    [–] [email protected] 8 points 7 months ago

    "Stable" doesn't mean "doesn't crash", it means "low frequency of changes". Debian only makes changing updates every few years, and you can wait a few more years before even taking those changes without losing security support while Arch makes changing updates pretty much every time a package you have installed does.

    In no way is Arch more stable than Debian (other than maybe Debian Unstable/Sid, but even then it's likely a bit of a wash)

    [–] [email protected] -3 points 7 months ago

    If you are adding sources to Debian you are doing it wrong. Use flatpak or Distrobox although distrobox is still affected