I went wild and started using it for servers about 5 years ago and I shit you not, it’s far more stable than I would have thought. I parse the blog for update notes if there’s any big changes to anything I’m using but given most stuff is offloaded to containers, I pretty much yolo a yay -Syu every week. Zero issues.
I had more issues with Debian and Ubuntu due to bugs in stale packages or weird default configs than I have running bleeding edge vanilla via Arch.
People underestimate the issues that stale packages cause as well as the fragility that comes from the ways people introduce either newer packages or packages missing from the repos.
With Arch, everything is super up-to-date and you pretty much never install from outside the repos. It makes the system extremely robust and reliable (what I want from “stable”).
Finally pacman (and yay) are awesome and I trust them to do updates of thousands of packages at once. With Debian and Ubuntu, I lived in fear of those kind of updates uninstalling essential parts of my system. I had Fedora botch more than one upgrade release to release.
So, I also find Arch the most “stable” system I have used (though Chimera is looking awesome so far as well).
In the Linux world though, the word “stable” has come to mean “static” and unchanging as in RHEL and Debian. Arch is not “stable” by that definition.
I did have an issue with Arch in the past couple years. A kernel update cause the WiFi on one laptop to stop working on the latest kernel. I also have an LTS kernel install so rebooting into that brought me back up in a minute. When I checked a few days later, the problem had been fixed in the current kernel as well.
I wouldn’t call it stable. To me that implies I can run it for 5 years and don’t have to worry about compatibility changes.
But I never had it break on me.
I went wild and started using it for servers about 5 years ago and I shit you not, it’s far more stable than I would have thought. I parse the blog for update notes if there’s any big changes to anything I’m using but given most stuff is offloaded to containers, I pretty much yolo a
yay -Syuevery week. Zero issues.I had more issues with Debian and Ubuntu due to bugs in stale packages or weird default configs than I have running bleeding edge vanilla via Arch.
People underestimate the issues that stale packages cause as well as the fragility that comes from the ways people introduce either newer packages or packages missing from the repos.
With Arch, everything is super up-to-date and you pretty much never install from outside the repos. It makes the system extremely robust and reliable (what I want from “stable”).
Finally pacman (and yay) are awesome and I trust them to do updates of thousands of packages at once. With Debian and Ubuntu, I lived in fear of those kind of updates uninstalling essential parts of my system. I had Fedora botch more than one upgrade release to release.
So, I also find Arch the most “stable” system I have used (though Chimera is looking awesome so far as well).
In the Linux world though, the word “stable” has come to mean “static” and unchanging as in RHEL and Debian. Arch is not “stable” by that definition.
I did have an issue with Arch in the past couple years. A kernel update cause the WiFi on one laptop to stop working on the latest kernel. I also have an LTS kernel install so rebooting into that brought me back up in a minute. When I checked a few days later, the problem had been fixed in the current kernel as well.
I wouldn’t call it stable. To me that implies I can run it for 5 years and don’t have to worry about compatibility changes.
But I never had it break on me.