Arch is different...
this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2026
333 points (93.0% liked)
memes
22414 readers
2289 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
Why would anyone want to use a distro that can break at any update unexpectedly or have to read articles first to see if it's safe is beyond me.
It's too much of a hassle.
It just doesnt though. I've used it for almost a decade at this point and it just doesnt.
yeah windows do be like that
I've yet to have one of my windows systems brick itself. Several of my Linux systems have.
I haven't had a Windows install completely brick itself, but I have seen Windows go into a try to update->update fails->rollback->updates are available->tries to update again... etc. infinite loop.
It's been a while since I've had a Linux system brick that wasn't me doing something stupid, though I've gotten a lot better at handling the occasional minor hiccup.
It's a problem regardless of what OS it happens to. I've personally/professionally found it much more frequent that an update breaks something on linux vs. windows, but it's also much easier to fix those issues & they're rarely the kind of critical failure you get with a M$ OS.
(and if you truly crave stability, Debian is always happy to welcome you back into it's big soft embrace)
Any distro can break at any update. If you've ever done a major upgrade on any fixed-release distro, you have very likely experienced some sort of issue.
And the solution is very simple (and the same for all distros): Enable Snapshots, roll back if important stuff breaks.
Not atomic distros, at least not nearly the same risk. Every update is like a fresh install.
Flashbacks to when I bought a Winblows Surface Pro 3 tablet that broke on every single update they released for the first year i owned the damned thing
Yeah, idk bro, it's weird to me too.
It's can be fun to plumb the limits of computing and Arch's gimmick is living entirely on the bleeding edge of computing - it's where all the exciting issues are being actively identified and worked on. However, if you're not into tinkering, I agree - Arch is 'C tier' for average users - specifically because of the dangers of playing in deep waters. As an enthusiast myself, I have Arch on my daily driver, but only because I have a NAS, home server, backup strategy, and other Linux machines running Debian, Fedora, and SteamOS at the ready in case I hit one of Arch's infamous 'Bad Days'.