• germanatlas
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    91
    ·
    7 个月前

    most stable

    How the hell is arch more stable than Debian?

    • chrash0@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      7 个月前

      i think it’s a matter of perspective. if i’m deploying some containers or servers on a system that has well defined dependencies then i think Debian wins in a stability argument.

      for me, i’m installing a bunch of experimental or bleeding edge stuff that is hard to manage in even a non LTS Debian system. i don’t need my CUDA drivers to be battle tested, and i don’t want to add a bunch of sketchy links to APT because i want to install a nightly version of neovim with my package manager. Arch makes that stuff simple, reliable, and stable, at least in comparison.

      • laurelraven
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        7 个月前

        “Stable” doesn’t mean “doesn’t crash”, it means “low frequency of changes”. Debian only makes changing updates every few years, and you can wait a few more years before even taking those changes without losing security support while Arch makes changing updates pretty much every time a package you have installed does.

        In no way is Arch more stable than Debian (other than maybe Debian Unstable/Sid, but even then it’s likely a bit of a wash)

      • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 个月前

        If you are adding sources to Debian you are doing it wrong. Use flatpak or Distrobox although distrobox is still affected

    • Shareni@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      7 个月前

      Just Arch users being delusional. Every recent thread that had Arch mentioned in the comments has some variation of “Arch is the most stable distro” or “Stable distros have more issues than Arch”.