this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2024
471 points (84.3% liked)

linuxmemes

20483 readers
1101 users here now

I use Arch btw

Sister communities:

Community rules

  1. Follow the site-wide rules and code of conduct
  2. Be civil
  3. Post Linux-related content
  4. No recent reposts

Please report posts and comments that break these rules!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
471
Arch with XZ (lemmy.world)
submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
93 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 months ago (2 children)

i think it’s a matter of perspective. if i’m deploying some containers or servers on a system that has well defined dependencies then i think Debian wins in a stability argument.

for me, i’m installing a bunch of experimental or bleeding edge stuff that is hard to manage in even a non LTS Debian system. i don’t need my CUDA drivers to be battle tested, and i don’t want to add a bunch of sketchy links to APT because i want to install a nightly version of neovim with my package manager. Arch makes that stuff simple, reliable, and stable, at least in comparison.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago

"Stable" doesn't mean "doesn't crash", it means "low frequency of changes". Debian only makes changing updates every few years, and you can wait a few more years before even taking those changes without losing security support while Arch makes changing updates pretty much every time a package you have installed does.

In no way is Arch more stable than Debian (other than maybe Debian Unstable/Sid, but even then it's likely a bit of a wash)

[–] [email protected] -3 points 4 months ago

If you are adding sources to Debian you are doing it wrong. Use flatpak or Distrobox although distrobox is still affected