Linux

48340 readers

430 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

nooter692@lemmy.ml

MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

d3Xt3r

100

Linux middle ground? (lemmy.world)

submitted 2 months ago by Bunny19@lemmy.world to c/linux@lemmy.ml

145 comments fedilink hide all child comments

so a common claim I see made is that arch is up to date than Debian but harder to maintain and easier to break. Is there a good sort of middle ground distro between the reliability of Debian and the up-to-date packages of arch?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] EuroNutellaMan@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

that's because you can't have both. It' arch or it's very stable. Granted Arch by itself is not that unstable if you manage it well and know what you're doing but we're talking hardly ever having to troubleshoot something.

Manjaro doesn't acieve any more stability than Arch, and in fact is actually worse than arch.

Debian testing is a rolling.

Manjaro is an arch derivative and has the bad parts of arch still. Again, why recommend manjaro when you have better alternatives that actually achieve what manjaro sets itself out to be? Fedora had KDE plasma 6 sooner than Manjaro afaik and it managed to be stable, it is a semi-rolling with up to date yet stable packages etc, same for OpenSUSE Tumbleweed. Manjaro has no purpose, it's half-assed at being arch and it's half-assed at being stable.

AUR isn't a problem in Manjaro because of lack of support, it's a problem because packages there are made with Arch and 99.999% of its derivatives in mind, aka latest packages not one week old still-broken packages. Also Manjaro literally accidentally DDoSes the AUR every now and then because again they're incompetent.

And if you're going to be using Flatpaks then all the more reason to not bother using Manjaro or any arch derivative and just use an actually stable distro with flatpaks.

[–] lemmyvore@feddit.nl 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Manjaro has no purpose, it's half-assed at being arch and it's half-assed at being stable.

My experience with Manjaro and Fedora, OpenSUSE etc. contradicts yours. Manjaro has the best balance between stability and rolling out of the box I've seen.

"Out of the box" is key here. You can tweak any distro into doing anything you want, given enough time and effort. Manjaro achieves a good balance without the user having to do anything. I remind you that I've tested this with non-experienced users and they have no problem using it without any admin skills (or any admin access).

Debian testing is a rolling.

It is not.

AUR isn't a problem in Manjaro because of lack of support, it's a problem because packages there are made with Arch and 99.999% of its derivatives in mind, aka latest packages not one week old still-broken packages.

And yet I've managed to install dozens of AUR packages just fine. How do you explain that?

Matter of fact, I've never run into an AUR package I couldn't install on Manjaro. What package is giving you trouble?

Manjaro literally accidentally DDoSes the AUR every now and then because again they're incompetent.

You're being confused.

AUR had very little bandwidth to begin with and could not cope with the rise in popularity of Arch-based distros. That's a problem that needs to be solved by the AUR repo first and foremost. Manjaro did what they could when the problem became apparent and has added caching wherever it could. Both Manjaro and Arch devs have worked together to improve this.

[–] EuroNutellaMan@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

How do you explain that?

Easy: You were merely lucky that they didn't break.

And no it wasn't just a rise in popularity of Arch it was Manjaro's PAMAC sending too many requests DDoSing the AUR.

[–] lemmyvore@feddit.nl 0 points 2 months ago

You were merely lucky that they didn't break.

Lucky... over 5 years and with a hundred AUR packages installed at any given time? I should play the lottery.

I've noticed you haven't given me any example of AUR packages that can't be installed on Manjaro right now, btw.

it wasn't just a rise in popularity of Arch it was Manjaro's PAMAC sending too many requests DDoSing the AUR.

You do realize that was never conlusively established, right? (1) Manjaro was already using search caching when that occured so they had no way to spam AUR, (2) there's more than one distro using pamac, and (3) anybody can use "pamac" as a user agent and there's no way to tell if it's coming from an actual Manjaro install.

My money is on someone actually DDoS'ing AUR and using pamac as a convenient scapegoat.

Last but not least you're trying to use this to divert from the fact AUR packages work fine on Manjaro.