Comment by bitwize

Comment by bitwize 18 hours ago

6 replies

My experience is just the opposite: Linux requires more up-front tinkering, but once you get it into a shape you want, it tends to stay that way and get out of your way. Windows, by contrast, requires much more ongoing active maintenance, and previous releases were prone to simply shitting the bed without explanation or recourse. MacOS is better about this than Windows, but not as good as Linux.

Now if you're talking Arch Linux... sure. The Arch devs love yanking the carpet out from under you and then telling you "you should have read that forum post from a week ago if you didn't want your system to break". But other distros, like Slackware, Debian, and Void, are quite stable across updates.

bee_rider 13 hours ago

Has Arch gotten much worse recently or something? When I used it they were pretty good about posting “manual intervention required” when needed on the front page of their site.

  • herbst 9 hours ago

    Not at all. Also usually when things break you can just Google and fix it within a few minutes.

    It's not the hours of debugging why grub suddenly broke or X isn't starting anymore it was long ago.

  • WD-42 13 hours ago

    It hasn’t. I can’t remember a “rug pull” in the last 10 years. People forget arch packages are pretty much as close to upstream as you can get, the arch packagers tend to do as little as possible.

    • deafpolygon 10 hours ago

      A little warning message or update inside pacman would be a real nice QoL improvement.

abhinavk 18 hours ago

I surely love answering *Why I don't want to backup my files and settings to OneDrive" every few months OR Removing things like Edge Game Assist etc from autostarting.