linuxmemes

I’m in the 4th box where there’s nothing to do so you try something new and botch up systemd or netplan or something enough to warrant a fresh install and start again

In my experience the only times I've had a stable experience was

• when I actually only installed packages I needed i.e using a window manager instead of a DE (and no bloat packages which I'll eventually lose track of)

• using an atomic distro, my favourite so far has to be bluefin which is part of the Ublue project based on Fedora Silverblue. NixOS is also great but it gives me the urge to pointlessly tinker instead of getting actual stuff done.

In the past I've seen flatpaks and containers as bloated and messy solutions which tainted my computer but now that I've tried it, It's actually very convenient.

I've always installed a crap ton of packages for gaming which turns into this inevitable mess, but with containers I just use bazzzite-arch and be done with it. It wraps all my gaming packages in one neat container.

I had this when going from Ubuntu 20 to 22 last week. Luckily the universe made sense again when going from 22 to 24, breaking halfway the installation and putting my laptop in a fucked up state between 22 and 24. Caused me a whole afternoon of headaches

Me hoping 6.13 fixes the AMD iGPU issue introduced with 6.12.

Ohh, but the pain of discovering that it broke something important, but not often used, 3 months later....

Debian stable. I don't understand why people would want an unstable system.

I get wanting the latest applications, and by that I mean end-user tools one uses frequently, e.g. Blender or Steam, but for anything that those rely on, very very rarely does one genuinely need anything "new" urgently. I'd argue pretty much never but I'd be curious to discover counter examples. Just fa couple of days ago https://lemmy.ml/post/24882836/16154377 arguing about the topic too. Even for drivers for gaming, which are supposedly changing relatively "fast" there is rarely an actual need for it. Quite often it's a desire to get the latest but the actual impact is not that significant.

TL;DR: IMHO stable system with security updates running few bleeding edge apps isolated is the best compromise.

Windows: You got a kernel panic from an update just once this week? I went through two BSODs today!

Mac: It'd happen more often if I actually had software! You get everything!

Arch: While getting updates can cause crashes sometimes, new stuff is fun.

Debian: You guys are getting updates?

Is this some sort of Arch joke I'm too stable and usable to understand?

Next update: the same thing breaks again. After searching forums, you notice a pattern going back to 2002.

Ackshyually your distro can't get "stable" in an update. "stable" means that the distro should not have any new issues introduced with updates in the first place.

What is stable? I just run nix flake update then brew a coffee to accompany me for the next 12 hours

On my new Lenovo with a brand install of Fedora, DNF was reporting 10KiB/s disk writes when installing packages. That was a long long upgrade but fortunately all that got fixed by the upgrade.

Which distro? I’ve upgraded Mint on the weekend. The installer failed with an error where i couldn’t get good infos about online.

Then i just rebooted the system out of frustration. Surprisingly it seems to work fine.

Is there a distro where upgrades just work? Maybe Fedora? Or i just install arch on the system, it works great on my server for the last 10 years without reinstall.

When my arch testing prod server reboots cleanly after a kernel update

It's a meme because it's made up and never happens /s

nothing but lies

Upgrading my Nobara from 40 to 41 stopped my nvidia driver crashes in wayland for now, i hope it's not just a fluke :-)

I updated the the other day and now my system boots to a grub prompt; I have to type exit and then it starts normally.

I'd figure out how to fix it, but I reboot so infrequently that I keep forgetting about it.