I feel like the people that perpetuate this meme have never used Arch. I’ve ran it on multiple computers for just over a decade and only once have I had an issue. And that one time, it was my fault. It’s been the most solid OS I’ve used.
Meanwhile, my headless Ubuntu server couldn’t do a dist-upgrade without shitting all over itself. I only ran Ubuntu because of the constant “never use Arch for servers” talk. I wish I had never listened to that. Everything I own runs Arch now and it’s so nice.
Be fair, let’s not compare to Ubuntu, we all know it’s shit. The reason you don’t use arch on servers is because of bugs in new package versions and manual intervention requirements every once in a while, not because it breaks a lot. Try Debian on servers. It’s rock solid, even more so than arch.
Tbf the main people who steer away from something like Arch for servers are enterprise Linux users who prefer stuff like RHEL for the 10 years of never having to upgrade anything until the very last moment when they fork out thousands for expert sysadmins to upgrade it for the next 10 years.
I like the rolling release for just about everything. Since package updates are spread out, you can usually figure out which package broke what pretty easily if something ever breaks down…, which shouldn’t, because I still can’t recall instance of such catastrophic failure just by updating.
Don’t do dist-upgrades of servers. Get a second server, set that up with the new OS and software, transfer traffic to the new server, shut down the old one.
Maybe so, but it’s much harder to learn from your mistakes and fix them on distros like Ubuntu.
I say this as someone who has recently switched to Arch because my Windows existence was aggravating me and I had never clicked well with Linux in the past. It felt too unfamiliar and I think I’m the kind of masochistic weirdo who benefits from their first proper go at Linux being Arch.
I still don’t have a fully working setup on my desktop yet because I’m working on doing it properly, but problems and mistakes are much easier to fix on Arch than on any other distro I’ve used.
Lol, that’s fair. If I would have spent significant hours researching all the changes and the new config files, I probably could have had a better time.
However, around that time I decided that dist-upgrades were: 1) for the birds, and 2) like Windows in that it’s easier & better to wipe and reinstall.
I feel like the people that perpetuate this meme have never used Arch. I’ve ran it on multiple computers for just over a decade and only once have I had an issue. And that one time, it was my fault. It’s been the most solid OS I’ve used.
Meanwhile, my headless Ubuntu server couldn’t do a dist-upgrade without shitting all over itself. I only ran Ubuntu because of the constant “never use Arch for servers” talk. I wish I had never listened to that. Everything I own runs Arch now and it’s so nice.
Be fair, let’s not compare to Ubuntu, we all know it’s shit. The reason you don’t use arch on servers is because of bugs in new package versions and manual intervention requirements every once in a while, not because it breaks a lot. Try Debian on servers. It’s rock solid, even more so than arch.
Tbf the main people who steer away from something like Arch for servers are enterprise Linux users who prefer stuff like RHEL for the 10 years of never having to upgrade anything until the very last moment when they fork out thousands for expert sysadmins to upgrade it for the next 10 years.
Agreed. I’ve used it since 2006. There were times where it broke every few months years ago, but lately, it is rock solid. Updates aren’t scary.
I heard that Debian is pretty good for servers
Better than Ubuntu. Still, I feel like rolling release is great for a server
I like the rolling release for just about everything. Since package updates are spread out, you can usually figure out which package broke what pretty easily if something ever breaks down…, which shouldn’t, because I still can’t recall instance of such catastrophic failure just by updating.
Don’t do dist-upgrades of servers. Get a second server, set that up with the new OS and software, transfer traffic to the new server, shut down the old one.
That’s basically what I did. The only change was I installed Arch instead. No more dist-upgrades!
The Ubuntu failure was likely also your fault. 😄
Maybe so, but it’s much harder to learn from your mistakes and fix them on distros like Ubuntu.
I say this as someone who has recently switched to Arch because my Windows existence was aggravating me and I had never clicked well with Linux in the past. It felt too unfamiliar and I think I’m the kind of masochistic weirdo who benefits from their first proper go at Linux being Arch.
I still don’t have a fully working setup on my desktop yet because I’m working on doing it properly, but problems and mistakes are much easier to fix on Arch than on any other distro I’ve used.
Lol, that’s fair. If I would have spent significant hours researching all the changes and the new config files, I probably could have had a better time.
However, around that time I decided that dist-upgrades were: 1) for the birds, and 2) like Windows in that it’s easier & better to wipe and reinstall.
Standard Linux incel user blaming.
It’s true. Ever since I got married, intercourse has been at a premium.