• Dessalines@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 years ago

    I distro hopped for many years, until I ended up on arch (the rolling distros are kind of a stable end state for linux installs). I will say that the argument that “rolling distros are more unstable”, was completely wrong and unfounded. Many updates to things like qt or xorg have broken point distributions, and I’ve found that an arch install has been more stable than ubuntu in particular.

    • TheKernalBlog@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 years ago

      True, Arch is a lot more stable than many people give it credit for. In my long time using Arch, I’ve only ever had dependency problems once. And Ubuntu, especially nowadays, is not the best when it comes to stability. However, I would argue that RHEL/RockyLinux or Debian are generally more stable than Arch.

    • stopit@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 years ago

      Rolling distros are unstable by definition - they change regularly. You are confusing (as many do) stability with reliability.