linuxmemes

Exactly my thoughts as well.

Why update on that little battery life left... the power will return sooner or later, going without updates even for a week or two is no real problem. Hell, I update like once every 3 weeks to a month, it's not that big of a deal.

I don't think I've had a pacman update take longer than 10 minutes before. Sounds like OP was updating all their AUR packages too.

Still absolutely a terrible thing to do on 10% battery life. I bet there's an AUR package for "check battery level before update" out there somewhere though.

OPs meme is "use distro whose model is 'give users enough rope to hang themselves' " and complaining he's at the gallows

Wait if the power is out, how do they have Internet to load new packages? Something doesn't make sense here

Why would Arch do this?

Power outages do happen, and I'm pretty sure 90% of the people on this community are not using an UPS.

Given enough users and enough time, it's inevitable that a power outage will happen to some people at an inopportune moment, like while updating an important package like the kernel.

Blaming the user for this is not fair, it's just dumb bad luck.

That said, OP could have done a bit more to fix the issue instead of being an angry man yelling at the cloud. When you're using Arch, the expectation is that you are able to fix relatively simple problems like this, or that you're at least willing to learn it. If you find yourself getting angry when Arch doesn't hold your hand, you probably shouldn't have chosen Arch.

I'd gladly take an Arch wiki article

For a while, I had to do this after every kernel update

Turns out, i accidentally had two /boot folders. One was is own partition, and the other was on the rootfs partition. When Arch booted, the separate partition was mounted over the rootfs /boot dir, "shadowing" it

Except, UEFI / GRUB was still pointing to the rootfs partition. So when pacman installed a kernel update, it wasn't able to update the kernel that UEFI was booting, but it was able to update the kernel modules

Kernel no likey when kernel modules are newer than the kernel itself

sure, but what os wouldn't break if you did this?

I still don't get the problem. Are you complaining you have to chroot into your system and finish the update because your power got interrupted? Is a 5 min detour into a live system making you unconfortable? This is how you would fix it in any distro except the image based ones and the arch wiki will guide you excellently how to do it. Good luck!

I mean any which way you try to frame this, saying that you won’t use Arch anymore because you didn’t take the precautions necessary based on your situation is gonna take some heat here.

It is! My Desktop hardly ever topples over!

So I'm trying to understand if you think that shutting down an update during regenerating the initramfs indicates that Arch isn't stable? Because that's a FAFO move and would crater any non-atomic update distro.

When talking about Linux, "stable" usually means "doesn't have major changes often", or in other words, "doesn't have lots of updates that break stuff". That's why "Debian stable" is called that. Arch is not that.

Stable does not mean it's for everybody. My installation runs since now 10 years.

(The only other distribution this failsafe I know of is Debian)

ask chatgpt

You mean read the Arch wiki?

Debian and Fedora are solid on the desktop

I think fedora would survive this abuse. It doesn't replace when you install kernels, but instead adds it.

Arch Linux with 2 kernels ;)