Is Arch reallyyy that unstable??

[BernardoHenriquez]

Using Arch since 2011 in my pc and laptop and my servers, not issue at all

[jx]

For me stable means that your software changes more frequently. Not that it breaks more often, but it has more updates, more bugfixes, etc. Rather than having no updates for months.

[tylerdean]

I've been using Arch for the past 2 years on a single install, and it's not that bad, but there are breakages. If you can't handle the breakages, I probably wouldn't use Arch. But, I've never encountered any breakages that I can't fix. And the stability all depends on what packages you have installed. If pipewire breaks, like it did last year, if you were running pulse audio, you would have never known. Even the GRUB situation that everyone was talking about a few months ago, if you weren't using GRUB, then you would have never had any breakages, it's the versatility of Arch, the ability to have a unique software stack, that causes issues. The only reason I'm still using Arch, is the AUR, and the minimalist DIY thing its got going on. I will say that there's something to be said about setting everything up yourself, it makes you much more familiar with the system than dealing with a distro maintainer's vision and unique configurations that are less easy to change or differ from the official documentation. The beauty is being able to roll your own in a way that few other distros offer, but that could apply to any of the minimalist distros, and even the BSD variants. Currently trying FreeBSD on a laptop right now, it's been kind of like Arch, having to learn everything again, but I recommend anyone try a minimalist distro just for the learning experience, and the familiarity with the system that it gives, because when something breaks, you'll be better prepared to fix it.

[theblankuser]

Yeah I too update just because packages URLs tend to change pretty quickly, updating and retrying to download works fine 90% of the times.
On my laptop I use Artix and update it once a month and nothing broke so far.
Ironically I found Debian more unstable since to have new features you need to compile a lot of programs and install libs on libs on libs that will probably break some other tools.
TLDR Arch-based distros are lit

[souviksaha]

why can't yay or any other aur helper use the dependencies required by that aur package, in isolation? So that even if the aur package updates it's dependencies from time to time, only THAT package breaks and not others in the system.

[WelcomsAge]

Can you support your statements by testing Fedora Linux, both with and without installing AUR packages?

[hilmar]

Just realized why it's named BLEEDING edge. Because you will be on the edge of users who are going to bleed for their decisions sooner or later.

[Geeraf]

I like the quality of your videos but not the content. They're like complete beginner discussions. I get that your target audience might be different. But the videos themselves don't seem that interesting. You could do something like scripting, review tools like ripgrep, sd, or review newer stuff like hyprland... etc.

[richardbaker]

I can crash any arch Distro in a week. I think it’s hard to use. And I have a hard time finding help online. I will stick with Debian or Ubuntu!!