120
Upgrade Arch, on a whim.
(thelemmy.club)
Made this on a whim, while commenting on that other recent Arch related post... the tamagochi one.
It's been years since I actually used Arch. I hear much has changed (~ like it has an easy installer now?). Does it still itch to faceplant from time to time, needing rescue or abandon? Does Arch still faceplant itself?
How long have you managed to keep an arch going? How many times needing rescued back to being bootable in that duration?
[And would have posted this from that account, but that lemmy.wtf instance is tempramental, currently 504ing again. Glad I recently made this alt account so I can still post this and carry on with life.]
To provide an example from the debian world: I tried running Debian testing on a desktop system around 15 years ago. Lasted maybe a couple of months before it broke into a state I couldn't rescue it from. Now, I didn't have much Linux experience back then, but I also think that Debian isn't as user-friendly as Arch when it comes to update instructions for its rolling releases (testing and sid/unstable). Maybe there's a mailing list somewhere, but mailing lists are generally also pretty arcane. Plus there's lots of outdated info and dead links on the Debian wiki.
As someone who uses Debian everywhere - it's just the opposite end of the spectrum from Arch for (non security) updates. Getting any OS into a bad state is trivial if your not paying attention. I still don't understand why they make a rolling release version.
Oh yeah, all my installs are Debian or Debian-derivatives and they're all rock solid as long as you keep to stable/LTS releases.
Debian rolling release versions seem to be for Debian development, not really intended for end users (which is probably why it's called "testing"). Maybe the communication around that needs to be clearer, though Debian can't really do much about all the people who aren't Debian members/maintainers who claim that running testing/sid is fine.