Linux

48182 readers

1637 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

nooter692@lemmy.ml

MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz

103

Linux middle ground? (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 month ago by Bunny19@lemmy.world to c/linux@lemmy.ml

146 comments fedilink hide all child comments

so a common claim I see made is that arch is up to date than Debian but harder to maintain and easier to break. Is there a good sort of middle ground distro between the reliability of Debian and the up-to-date packages of arch?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ScottE@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

And I hate when people take a single case and extrapolate it as a general statement.

By that argument Ubuntu is equally unstable as they have rolled out updates that broke grub resulting in unbootable systems - not during a full distro upgrade, but as Ubuntu specific patches to LTS.

In the end, we have choice, and choice is a good thing.

[–] yoevli@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The fact remains that Arch generally requires more work to maintain an installation than a typical point-release distro. I'm speaking from experience - I had two systems running Arch for over 2 years. I switched away when each system separately had a pacman update somehow get interrupted resulting in a borked install. I was using Mint before and Fedora now, and both are a lot more hands-off at the cost of some flexibility.

Also, just to be clear, I'm not trying to disparage Arch at all. I think it's a really cool distro that's perfect for a certain type of user; I just don't think it's great to lead people to believe it's more reliable than it is in the way that I've been seeing online for a while now.