82
Users of Arch-based distros, why don't you use pure Arch? (ani.social)
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by to c/linux@programming.dev
127 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

(No provocation)

I see these reasons:

  • newbie
  • lazy (don't wanna edit config files etc.)
  • unique features (like assistant/toolbox, some optimizations like in cachyos)
  • wanna check how different systems are set up (that's rather distrohopping)

Personally, I used manjaro i3 when I was beigginer and wanted to see how tiling WM should be configured (check out ranger config, for example). But after some time, I don't see reasons why not to just customize pure arch (same with debian and debian-based distros).

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

Docker would be the sensible approach.

Imagine if the new version of some package is only compatible with the old version of PHP, but now Arch is using the new one. The admin would have to keep the old version of PHP until the devs of that other package release an update. I recall reading something about pacman not supporting partial upgrades like that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    Exactly, partial upgrades are not supported. Always best to do a pacman -Syu to upgrade the entire system instead of just one package.

    At least that's the case for system packages. More isolated packages don't need as much care or carry much risk of rendering a system unbootable or similar risks, but I say it's like signaling your turn when driving even if no one is around — best to just make it a habit. 🙂

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent