Arch is different…

  • TeamAssimilation@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    13 hours ago

    I think no rolling releases has gotten their act right. All eventually break with an update, and if you skipped several, the likelihood of reinstalling is high.

    At least they teach you good backup practices.

    • Natanox@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Wouldn’t say that. OpenSuse Tumbleweed might got some tech debt with their backend and doesn’t come with fancy stuff such as Kernel modifications like Cachy, but their rolling distro is rock solid. And for the few cases where something really breaks the bootable btrfs Snapshots come by default.

      It still is for Intermediate users for sure (the installer expects you to know what you want - yet is a GUI). But in terms of stability they really nailed it, I’d absolutely use it for work horses that require newest software. Or Leap if I require binary compatibility to SLED/SLES.

    • black0ut@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 hours ago

      My record with Arch is longer than 6 months without updates, and it completed the updates fine.

      My oldest install is 4 years old, and it’s true, it became unbootable once. But it was my fault, for generating an initramfs without free space in /tmp, which caused it to fail. It was a quick fix once I figured it out.

      All of this isn’t to say rolling is as stable as Debian, of course. Rolling is inherently gonna be more unstable, and that’s by design.

      But if you take some care, you can actually make these rolling distros pretty stable. Hell, my servers run Arch (I’m working on migrating them to Gentoo to get rid of systemd, but I haven’t yet commited to it). And I haven’t had any serious breakages, even on Arch Linux ARM.

      • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 hours ago

        But it was my fault, for generating an initramfs without free space in /tmp, which caused it to fail.

        I really don’t think that was your fault. A critical build process that’s not checking for resources and not failing gracefully and leaving the machine unbootable is not the user’s fault.

        A build+install can fail for many reasons. It’s actually annoying how many critical system updates on Linux don’t use a staging process and a sudden power-off at the wrong time can leave the machine completely crippled.

        Some distros have taken to doing a BTRFS snapshot before they start the upgrade but (a) they’re far and few in between and (b) that still doesn’t fix the upgrade process, it’s just sweeping the problem under the carpet.

        • hirihit640@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 minutes ago

          I’m starting to sound like a broken record but since nobody else has mentioned it yet: atomic/immutable distros often use something called rpm-ostree, which stages updates for the next boot. Updates are “atomic”, so you can’t end up with a corrupt partial update, even if you pull the power mid-update (in which case it will just stay on the current version). Everybody gets the same base image, so your OS won’t diverge over time and end up like some frankenstein mess that. It’s all super cool tech.