Stable vs Unstable does not mean anything to do with bugginess or prone to breakage.

It literally just means package version changes.

Stable meaning packages update slowly and only minor versions or security.

Unstable means packages update frequently including major versions

Inherently rolling releases are unstable.

My personal experience too is that Arch has been the best distro for lack of bugs and issues on my machines than Fedora or Debian etc.

I have no idea what people keep talking about when they say Arch/CachyOS is “unstable”.

a) stable in the sense of not changing, or more specific not changing dramatically the user experience and not breaking compatibility, so you can rely on being the same, and b) stable in the sense of not breaking by bugs and issues. Those are two different topics sharing the same wording of stable/unstable. It's a similar issue of the word "Free", which could mean either Open Source or no cost in money.

Archlinux is unstable, in the sense that it changes frequently, without warning for most of the time, and this can break compatibility or user experience. Compare the other extreme Debian, which is very stable.

Yeah I get you, recently with everyone vibe-coding their stuff, there have been a lot of useless distros, but I really feel like I'm onto something useful. I'm self employed and basically temporarily took on less orders so I can work on this full-time until I get the first version out and actual full on development turns into maintaining and improving. I can definitely manage it and actually look forward to it as it's super fun to me! Also I used today to make some changes as you can read in the comment I just left.

wdym about hard? this is to achieve immutability plus kernel efficiency improvements.

As has been noted in the ArchWiki that is expected to be read by users, one should always check for package-related news before upgrading their Arch system. This is because package changes and breakages that require user intervention do occur, and ignoring them can sometimes leave a broken system. Arch isn't really hard after getting over the bootstrap hurdle, but simply requires more upkeep effort than most point release distros would.

Fuck no

Okay, I'm just going to reply to this one really quick before sleeping, my intention was for this to be the short version of Plutonium-239 so it matches better with the logo. I kind of hope for this to be colloquially refered to as just Plutonium, but that itself as a name sounded boring. You are right to point it out and I agree, it was a placeholder at first however that name eventually grew on me too much and the domain is already purchased haha

Man, good question, I'm still torn about this. Initially I was forced to use GitHub specifically from my university, now it kind of stuck. I haven't pushed much yet anyway so I might even make the switch.

Check out the comment I just left, I implemented a solution that pacman is now completely usable so it's literally just vanilla Arch but atomic instead of being Flatpak-only!

Can't speak much about OP's distro or CachyOS, but I can talk about how Fedora Atomic differs from simply doing btrfs backups before every update.

First, updates are not the only thing that can modify the base system. Installing packages, installing plugins or extensions, manual user modifications, etc, can all end up bricking the system. Fedora Atomic makes the base system immutable so that the only way of making modifications is via rpm-ostree, which ensures that you always have a way to rollback.

Second, one of the issues with traditional update mechanisms is that over time, updates might not do proper clean-up and leave artifacts. This is a harder problem than people realize, because users can have all sorts of permutations of packages and versions installed, and the update mechanism has to account for all of them. Over time, and many updates, a system can accumulate tons of small update errors and finally fall over. I've had this issue myself and heard of this issue from multiple sources. Fedora Atomic solves this by ensuring that every update is like a complete re-install.

Third, since every Fedora Atomic user uses the same base system as their distro maintainers, they can be sure that their base system is well tested. Bugs are more reproducible, and thus can be fixed faster. None of those "works on my system, you're on your own" issues.

Fourth, this one isn't a benefit to the user but the community. Fedora Atomic (and universal blue) distros are easy to fork. This is why there are so many flavors now. Bluefin, Aurora, Bazzite, Secureblue, Wayblue, etc. Instead of one generic distro with a huge community relying on a few maintainers, like Fedora used to have, now you have smaller specialized communities with their own leaders, and users can choose which community they align with more. And you can even switch communities, since rpm-ostree allows you to "rebase" to a different distro (eg Aurora -> Bazzite).

I both hate this so much and respect the creativity lmao

HiroshimaOS

I think the main point is, that this new distribution is operating in an atomic form. Similar to how SteamOS or Bazzite works in regard that, but more general compute oriented like CashyOS and not a gaming distro. When I understand this correctly.