Hello everyone, lately I got really into Linux. I installed it in every machine I have, but I still had to try Arch. From what people were saying online I thought that it was going to be a hard and impossible task. So I bought a Thinkpad for a hundred euros (x260 if you’re wondering) and I followed a guide on how to install Arch. I thought I was going to be using the terminal all the time, and had to type everything. No black screen of death, no prompt saying “Are you awake?” Matrix style, the pc didn’t breack, reality didn’t bend and just following simply the guide I had Arch running in fifhteen-twenty minutes no problem. Only the Network Manager wasn’t on were I rebooted after installation but it took five minutes to search online how to fix it. Everything works: bluetooth, internet, apps and so on. I could leave it as it is and I could just use it as any other pc. So all I’m saying is that I’m having a great time with Linux distros, the pain to learn how install repository and other things is really worth it. Every time I learn something more about my computer puts me more in control. So thank you Linux and its community.
The difference is rolling vs stable release.
Debian 13 is out, and it will stay exactly the same Debian 13 that it was when it released, even 5 years from now. The only changes are bugfixes, security patches, etc. No new features. This means you can basically do unattended
sudo apt update && sudo apt upgradewith no problems. By the time Debian 14 comes out, there will have been a ton of changes to upstream software, Updating from 13 to 14 might be a one-click fix, or it might take effort fixing configs and ensuring the new software works.Arch Linux is rolling release, it does not have version numbers, and does not hold back a major package update just “because it changes things”. This means basically every update might change things, and that can require intervention. If the Arch Linux team is aware of required intervention, it will be put on the Arch News. This is often just one or two commands. The possibility of intervention being required means unattended upgrades are a no-go on Arch, but that’s pretty much it.
If you don’t update your system for say, a year, everything that’s changed in that time will change all at once. This is often still a few commands to fix, but could be more depending on what updated exactly. Updating regularly is reccomended, because it’s easier to tell what exactly changed between updates, and thus easier to track down where a problem originates from.
For general users, updates changing things is pretty much never an issue, which is why typical end users always use the word “stable” to convey it’s more colloquial meaning of “not going to break on me”, rather than the technical definition sys admins use it to describe.
If arch didn’t have breaking changes I don’t think users would ever really mind it being rolling release, which is how you get the term “stable rolling release” for rolling distros that hold updates for long enough to generally prevent breakage, like void or tumbleweed
To the original commenter’s point, as a more design and ux person I think being able to do unattended upgrades and not get any errors or stuff you have to fix is kinda important. Which is why I find it a tad irksome when technical folks act like everyone and their grandma should run arch cause it’s never given them issues. It is awesome that it sounds like it’s improved so much though!
Maybe I’ll try arch some time and see if I’ve progressed enough to not find managing my system a bit more bothersome
As an Arch user, man I hate when people are like that. Arch certainly has a specific target audience. If you (the individual) are comfortable with a distro, and it works well for you, it’s a good option. If Arch isn’t that, then it’s not a good option for you. Some people don’t understand that even the “once a year single command” maintenance is too technical for most.
Having run Arch only the last few years, I don’t know how much it’s improved compared to say 10 years ago. I do know on most of my systems I don’t spend that much time updating or maintaining my Arch installations, usually just a
yay, select which AUR packages not to update (the ones I have can have issues updating sometimes), wait for 15-ish minutes (depends how much I have to compile from AUR), and that’s it. From server to desktop, some weekly, others once every couple months. Although I would say it’s more than average, as I have a custom repository with some nightly compiled packages, which has its own issues.I 100% agree with this comment. Also, if that “once-a-year single command” bit was about my comment, I’d have appreciated the shout-out 😄
If not, all good — I was literally talking about copy-pasting a line from the Arch or package page. It’s nothing technical; it’s basically similar as running a
pacmancommand.Arch has certainly a specific target audience. That’s true for every distros. The magic of GNU/Linux — you get to pick exactly how much chaos you want in your life. From super-polished plug-and-play distros to full DIY mode, there’s something for everyone. Nobody should ever be forced to use a distro. Again, it’s a personal choice and the one that will make you enjoy using your system. Arch is meant for people who have time and desire to build their system and write a bunch of config files. In that sense, yeah, it’s a technical distro, and that certainly not make its users anything special. I’m still and will forever be a Linux noob compared to a lots of people.