Arch is different...
this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2026
403 points (93.1% liked)
memes
22448 readers
4209 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's why I go for boring distros like Fedora
If you want really boring, go for Debian.
It's a peaceful life
Hell yeah -- I do want my OS to be boring.
Hello from Mint :)
Mint based on Ubuntu or Debian? Debian mint is probably the most boring … and stable and great for anyone who just wants a computer to work.
Isn't it based on Ubuntu which is based on Debian? It's my first time using Linux and I switched a couple of weeks ago so I'm not sure to be honest but the website[1] states:
Which leaves me just as confused.
LMDE is the version of linux mint based on Debian rather than Ubuntu. It is missing a few features over the main version but it wont randomly shit the bed because of a bad ubuntu package.
What the other person wrote isn't quite true: there is a current version of Linux Mint based on Ubuntu (which is itself based on Debian) and another current version based directly on Debian for those who want to avoid Ubuntu.
Originally it was based on Ubuntu, which is itself based on Debian. But recently they based directly on Debian. There are some differences. Debian based is more stable with older packages and kernel.
Just wanted to add a clarification that both editions are offered currently.
What? No, there are two versions: the main one, based on Ubuntu, and an alternative one based directly on Debian (Linux Mint Debian Edition)
Indeed. or fed. the only drama i want in my life is the stuff going on IN the game. not some OS cockblocking me.
Yeah, lol. Arch people keep telling me that this never happens, and yet here it is.
Nah. Debian is fine for me.
I'm definitely lucky that I'm pushing 3 years on my desktop arch install and have never had any updates break it. Had some issues with Nvidia and Wayland over 2 years, but that wasn't really an arch thing, more an Nvidia thing.
My laptop is the same, but I use it far less, so really a fair of a comparison, although I do update every time I use it, which is every couple of days.
You just need to keep an eye on the news and it won't happen 99% of the time. Ive got it set up so news updates go to my email in a specific folder. That means i get the notification on my phone as well. Or just get into the habit of checking the page before updating
I don't need more shit to remember to do. I need a computer that works without me micromanaging it
Thats fine, then arch just isnt for you. Use what you want, but if someone installs arch then complains that it broke because they didnt check the news (something that the maintainers recommend you do) then the blame/fault shifts to the user, not the system.
The question is though why pacman does not display these news during the update. Gentoo has been doing this for decades.
Thats a separate issue, but i do agree with you that it would be extremely helpful if it did
Nah, lol. Not when lots of other systems manage to not break userspace on random updates.
You can claim that blame shifts to the user, but I'm still blaming the shitty system.
In a good system, you can trust that updates are well-vetted already before they're pushed to average users, and you don't need to check the news or anything else before updating. You can even set updates to be automatic with a high degree of confidence that it won't mess anything up for you. (Imagine that, the computer automatically updating itself, saving you the trouble of doing it manually... What a thought!)
Literally every distro ever even Debian. Has broken user space on updates. It just happens. It's a fact of life. If your distro hasnt done it to you at least once you are either very new to Linux or you are lying though your teeth.
Youre right for most systems that are advertised as stable. Arch however is rolling release, so this doesnt apply. You get package updates as soon as theyre available pretty much. So no, the fault lies with the user when it comes to arch 99% of the time
Edit: i also said the blame shifts to the user if they don't do something the maintainers specifically say you should do before every update. If you check the arch news, update, and it breaks then yes, the fault is with the maintainer. However this rarely happens nowadays. Ive been on arch for almost 6 years and have not had to do a reinstall ever.
"Good" means different things in different contexts. Here you mean it as something like "user friendly". Of course, there are other priorities that someone else could call "good". It's not a helpful word for honest debate, but it's very convenient for hiding a bunch of semantic puns and confused reasoning behind.
That is why I am using Tumbleweed, rolling release without the expectation of reading news before hitting zypper dup and stuff still being fine. The price for that is a few days of delay for testing, so that major stuff does not break.
Manjaro has also shown how an Arch distro can achieve this as well, by releasing tested sets of updates slower.
But OP is correct in that's not the point of vanilla Arch and people who use vanilla should assume the risks.
What's annoying is people who use vanilla and tell everybody "oh don't worry nothing ever breaks". Something always breaks. You have a couple thousand packages installed on the average desktop system, dozens are updated to bleeding edge every day, something will break.
Manjaro maintains a crowd-sourced list of the most egregious defects (+ their fixes) that crop up in popular packages, suffice to say it's never empty.
Many of them are not system-breaking and may not impact everyone, which is where I'm guessing the "nothing ever breaks" dissonance is coming from.
Fair enough. I am all for choosing a distro that aligns with the own reqirements. It is strange to use a misaligned distro and then complain about it.
That seems like a pain in the ass. like the sort of shit why i left windows behind. noted: will not touch arch. thanks for the heads up.
It comes from a very different place than Windows, and the data here is very transparent, unlike your average Microsoft KB.
dont care. It's still going into my "places i will never go." box. dont need an OS cockblocking me from my games. that shit can fuck right off.
Besides, some of is use our OS for work. cant afford telling a job "wahh im too stupid to use a reliable OS" just doesnt fly.
Ok I think this is where I draw the line. Not only are you just plain wrong, you have some kind of anti-social personality issues. I don't think there's any point in engaging in any kind of conversation with you as you have made it meaningless.
and yet that is not denying i made a good point. the mistake you made here is you think i care about getting a rando internet stranger's approval over my parameters of how i must survive and succeed. and boy did i hand you a good one if all your comeback here was just about how much i didnt kiss your specific ass enough.
You are right, that was my mistake. Let me fix it:
You made a terrible point. Both in your last post and here.
zzzzZzzZzz
It really sounds like a lot more effort than it actually is in reality, but as I said, use what you want :)
Arch in my opinion is for people who want to tinker with their system, and set everything up from scratch. If thats not what interests you then theres no point going through the process of installing everything and configuring every minute detail just to get to a usable system.
I disagree with a lot of other arch users who try to convince people to try arch, and i think its because as humans theres a part of us that wants to share/bring others into our "group", but I think in the long run thats bad for arch because it gives it a bad rep because its recommended to people it wasnt made for.
Personally because i like tinkering and having a fully custom system, im happy with it, and havent really had any issues with games or otherwise.
Ya then you need an application and you need to jump hoops or have certain versions of packages not available in your package manager, and on arch, here we go.
Gnome or KDE ? I like gnome over KDE in general but the top bar in gnome seems to create a blank bar in games at top of screen.
Haven’t figured out how to fix it.
You fix that by not using gnome. Or butchering gnome with enough extensions to functionally be a reverse lobotomy.
Since gnomes entirely shitck is that you don't get to decide how gnome works. It's out of the box or fuck off.
It's why it needs a billion extension and mods to be remotely functional
Back when I started Linux, poking at the system was fun and exciting (also you had to poke at the system anyway if you wanted to run anything). Now, I just want it out of the way and convenient.
I understand that newcomers might feel that they want to touch everything because it's all new and shiny, but I think the OS ought to be a creature of the shadows.
Hm... btw, I hate fedora.
Lemmy always seems downvote heavy. Why don’t you like fedora?
The upvotes mean some other people too don't like Fedora like me. Nothing more than that.
A distro can be perfect for some and, at the same time, hated by some others. That's normal.
Why it's not for me. Reasons:
Maintained by a corporation. Probably it's their testing ground.
Too much bloatware is preinstalled.
Too many updates, just like Arch. But arch feels more cleaner and faster anyway.
Require rpm fusion.
Crashes often.
There is always a connectivity issue on RPM Fusion servers.
Heavily depended upon flatpak.
Many applications don't have native Fedora packages or repos.
Nobara has also been stable. Underrated distro.