Updates should NOT be run every day! . ►► Digital Downloads ➜ christitus.com... ►► Reddit ➜ / christitustech ►► Chris Titus Tech ➜ / @christitustech ►► Twitch ➜ / christitustech ►► RU-vid Early Access ➜ / @titustechtalk
I find it so annoying when Arch users always say that it's the users fault when they break their system. Sure, users can break the system. But Arch has had its fair share of broken packages.
i mean 99.99% of the time it is the user that breaks is. after over 3 years of using arch daily. never had a broken package once. broken the install loads myself tho, especially when starting out
In other news, water is wet. 😁 I've run both. Arch is great if you want to craft your system from the ground up, really learn how to manipulate a Linux system at a low level, or play with the latest & greatest. If you're looking to just get work done or are building a server you need to rely on, then Debian is a much better choice.
@@sebastienhebert6457 but arch takes it even further, it's built in a way that you feel you're making your own distro coz it's basically vanilla out-of-box, the lightest debian can be isn't lighter than what arch really is
peter is just plain wrong, he says "it's the grub bootloaders fault don't blame arch", but it is the distributions job to make SURE those packages are stable before they are released to users. Arch linux has very little, most of the time no package curation whatsoever, whereas this is entirely different with other debian-based and fedora-based systems, every package that the distro maintainers plan on putting out to users is checked and verified to at least some extent so it does not break your system.
@@ChristopherGray00 I was just joking about the situation, I didn't care about the issue at all but since you mention it, you're contradicting yourself. You say "it's the distribution's job" and then say "Arch has no curation". Yes, we know. It's the point of Arch. Bleeding edge; curated/fixed by yourself (unless you use a fork like Manjaro or Garuda which "maintain" but at some point also break things). But even then, Pop_Os broke. Everything breaks eventually for one reason or another in Linux. One is more stable, sure. But doesn't mean infallible. I also don't think their discussion was serious. Thanks for explaining a funny situation...
@@LautaroQ2812 You should very confused about the definition of the word "contradiction", kind of embarrassing for a full grown man to not know a basic word or how to interpret a joke or a literal statement being made, in which the conversation was clearly the latter.
@@LautaroQ2812 Usually arch users can't admit any fault whatsoever and have to 100% shill all the time for its features, even if the system is literally in complete shambles, seeing an arch user trying to talk about stability is hilarious and completely hypocritcal.
I valued stability for 10+ years running Centos 6.x on a Thinkpad T-400. I now run an Arch clone, Endeavour, on a Thinkpad W-530. I have to run it just to keep up with DTOS!
You can make Arch stable with the right procedures and practices, but Debian is naturally more stable due to how tested (ie OLD) the packages are. This does not mean that either distro is better than the other. Use the screwdriver that fits the screw.
@@chonkusdonkus If I'm going to run a rolling release, I'd rather use the distro designed for it rather than a testing branch. Don't file down the Phillips screwdriver to handle your flatheads.
@@chonkusdonkus If it works for you, that's fine, but I don't think it's responsible to recommend it to others without telling them what they're getting into. But if you could perhaps enlighten me on specifically why it's "a billion times more stable," perhaps you could convince me to give it a try in a virtual machine. I did a quick search and didn't find any evidence that sid is any better than arch in terms of rolling distros, in fact people were warning about the six month 'freeze state' that Sid enters when Debian is about to release a new cycle.
At the end of the day if you are on Arch, do regular backups weekly, daily and on every package update. This safety net is more than enough. Also, don't update every other day. Once a week or two is good. Heck even a month. Update when you know if something break you can at least spend 10mins rolling back 😊
arch is not as stable as debian Yeah..no shit.. In other news water is wet. 😉... Did anyone actually believe that Arch is stable and meant for production aka business environments?
@@SunIsLost I have no idea why you replied to my comment with only "no." If you're going to say something...then put some effort into it. If you're going to disagree, then explain why and put some critical and intelligent thought into the reply. Otherwise you're just a dime a dozen idiot behind a screen
ROFL... I love this comment because I feel the same way. However, there are a few people that approached me saying "Arch is more stable" and I'm like... "Excuse me ?!?!"
You were right about Debian beeing on top tier list:))..i am using it now and just wow, that thing is super stable and polished..i know i praised Fedora and it is good but flickering, video freezing for 2 sec tipically 3 Times on MP4 format videos..etc and you cannot timeshift btrfs ok only if you install it with ext4 file system..but if os brakes booting Fedora live dosent allow you to install backup Tool..so i run to Debian 12, i am done with newest software and constant pop ups in gnome..so far not one single error happened on Debian 12.. thats fantastic
I find Mint/LMDE being the most polished Linux out there imo. Debian let's you have deeper customizability because it isn't so tightly coupled to it's DE which to me makes me like it with KDE more. However Mint is built to be Mint with cinnamon and man the experience is smooth. That's why I always recommend it.
I found myself in the position twice in the last 3 months where I updated as soon as packages were available and something important broke that made it impossible to boot into kde and needed to wait a few hours for a hotfix. Now I update once a every few days out of caution.
Ya, I love Arch. It's like driving a sexy sports car. But, I don't want to drive that gas guzzling, speed ticket magnet that costs a fortune to maintain and repair everyday to work. Debian is like a Toyota or Honda. Stable, lasts forever, is cheap on gas, maintenance, and repairs. That's what you want to drive everyday from point A to B. Just like a sports car, Arch has its place. For example, a dedicated gaming machine, but for production... Debian for the Win!
@@normanvelazquez3864 People that actually use Linux machines have to track what specifically is being updated. You see all of these people just going to update town Willy nilly.
i just got into all this Linux Rabbit hole. And i shot for the stars installing Linux arch. And oh boy, it's so easy to mess up. I've been playing around with a Virtual Machine, but god damn, It's both amazing and terrifying how easy you can built a Frankenstein of an OS just by messing around with packages.
Personally I do upgrade every time I turn on my laptop running Arch. If something doesn't work correctly after an update, its often not even a bug but just a change in behavior and that's not something you're avoiding by waiting to update. If anything, updating often makes it easier to debug any potential issues because its only a small handful of packages that changed. Another reason why I prefer very frequent updates on Arch is because some updates require manual intervention. It's a lot easier to miss some package saying "hey you need to do so and so now" while updating if you have pages and pages of pacman output whizzing by. Lastly, if you're going to use arch, just use BTRFS with bootable auto-snapshots before every update (and put the kernel on the snapshot too!). You always know that you have working versions of your system to fall back to instantly. Your bootloader is a single point of failure but you can run two boot loaders or just keep a backup of your bootloader if you're worried about that.
I agree with this. I do updates on 2 systems maybe twice a day. If it is a few packages or core updates & something breaks I can pin it down a lot faster.
Arch has NEVER been good or meant for a beginner user... never.. Not sure where that came from but facts are facts...and they haven't changed about what I just explained in more than 13 years easily
Nothing to do with beginner level. A user doesn't control the hundreds of package developments. If you update and something breaks, whether it be something as complex as a bootloader or a simple as 1 individual program, it doesn't matter, that's not the user's fault, it is the nature of the distro in general and their package management specifically.
@@sysadmin1350 and common sense , it you have any, would tell you the LESS troubleshooting a Linux beginner must do to keep things going involving that distro....the more sense it makes for a Linux beginner to use that distro. So YES it has plenty to do with it.
This is true, but for someone wanting to learn the ins and outs of Linux, Arch is fantastic for them. They aren't beginners in traditional sense, but maybe beginners to Linux that are tech savvy and have some unix experience.
It sucks the choices are an unchanging linux end-user experience stuck at some point where there are inadequacies which may have been fixed at some point, due to the linux end-user experience/desktop being pretty miserable and needing a lot of catch up, and a distro that may break in difficult to debug/fix ways.
Earlier Mint user here, not getting what i needed from that, for example Pipewire, switched to Manjaro + Qtile 2 years back and never looked back. Yes, its sometimes prone to errors on packages but 1. don't update even once a week, do it every 2-3 months and 2. use timeshift, even image the whole drive just to be sure. Problem solved. But of course, just doing stuff without thinking never pays off anyway.
Is anyone really still experiencing regular stability issues? I know there was the bootloader issue last year, but that did not affect everyone. I've had far more issues with windows booting than I ever had with Arch.
Debian spinoff user here (MX Linux). Debian is far too slow to update things in general, leading to much older apps being run by distro builders. Had to dump LibreOffice 7.0 for 7.6 because 7.0 lacked a number of new features. Even simple stuff like SimpleScan is way behind the mainstream release, and KDE was so far behind mainstream release that MX will soon have their latest distro version out based on Deb Bookworm with about a 5-release jump of KDE. Debian not keeping up with updates holds back the distros themselves, or forces end-users to do patches and updates manually.
I’m not running a server or in need of a ‘stable production machine’. So, I usually run Debian Testing. Much newer stuff and always newer incoming! Debian Testing is not the most stable thing. But if you have some Linux experience, it’s great! Much better to live with than the “unstable” branch of Debian. Requiring the very occasional reinstall. I don’t know how to get around a new major version of libc6 NOT requiring a fresh new install. Maybe there’s a way these days that I’m not aware of. Maybe Arch does that just fine or something, don’t know.
@@jimmyrichards5595 I have just enough experience to stay away from "Testing" versions due to needing a daily-use system without worries of it blowing up. Sparky Linux Testing (Debian) bit me a couple of times within days of installing it. But I understand why you and others might use Testing versions to get newer packages. I very briefly tried Manjaro but didn't want to deal with having to add so many applications out of the box, and a different world of commands, being used to apt, debs, etc, as well as risks like Chris mentioned of junk in the AUR being pushed out.
I don't know why anyone would update everyday, your bound to break something doing it that way. I usually check for updates once a week then wait a week or two then apply updates. This way I give myself ample time to see if anything arises.
Here in Brazil we have a phrase that brings somewhat you said. "This one is good to marry" Arch is an adventurous person that we never know if or when gonna leave us on a bad situation. Debian will stay at your side, it may not be the best, the latest, but it'll stay there when you need. And it's not only women, but men too😂
Arch allows usage of LTS kernel that doesn't have to be updated every week. So it is as stable as Debian, but when you actually update LTS Arch you apply smaller changes than Debian and it minimizes the risk of breaking something big then in an old Debian system.
I have been using arch for a year and it has been pretty good been broken for once that recent grub issue but never ever broke for any other reason. I do a lot of customisation and sht but it is okay for over a year or so. Also depends how much your knowledge of Linux is to keep it stable
I guess the argument he's making is (and I agree with this), I have a debian machine that's been on Debian stable for 15 years and it has never, EVER, EVER been rendered unbootable by Debian. Ever. No package debian has ever pushed to that server in its stable line has ever broken my server OR any components of that server. You talk about arch breaking only once in a year. I'm talking about debian never breaking.
@@JarrodHenry yeah you are totally right btw but yeah arch breaks once in a while but if I can fix it it's okay. But arch cannot be used where there is very important stuff going on where a single breakage can cause huge issues
Packages on Arch change fast. So new bugs can come up, old bugs can revive from the dead. But also your software can change. New UIs, regressions in UX. Debian packages don't update... like ever. I know that how I use my software right now will be exactly the same as two years from now. So I'm able to build up those procedures and workflow and don't have to worry about things changing.
There is something wrong with this question by definition Arch's philosophy has never been about stability, but about the latest available I use Arch because of the new hardware I have, but it's very annoying to constantly update, every 2 3 days a new kernel, it tends to be a testing operating system, not a requirement for stability and uptime Plus, Arch isn't what it used to be
reason i use arch =AUR. Without that i wouldn't use it. Its kind of because of the sad affair or package management in linux. I'm a developer & i need the latest (stable) versions of stuff I use & debian packages are just way to old. The best package manager is by far homebrew on mac (yes there is homebrew on linux but its not the same). Granted linux package manager is far better than anything windows has (winget & chocolatey).
Yeah I've never manged to make an Arch system survive a week due to myself NOT following those suggestions. If I want my system to work I run older software, something in the Debian/Ubuntu relm and let it go.
Ya, right, Debian doesn't work so hot on a VM either. I downloaded Debian to try on my VM. It took several hours to load up, and then the audio part would not work right. I also tried Zorin OS and had no trouble at all. Also, you cannot get help with Debian but you can with the Zorin Community. So, which do you thin people want to use?
Arch is not bleeding edge. Arch is current version package not beta and not alpha...
9 месяцев назад
4:40 You are so right - I am still on Catalina as my daily driver on MacOs. Everything that came afterwards did not add to my system. So I did not install it. And I don't need the flashy, blingy apple widgets. And I could at least deinstall Siri on my machine. It's getting harder on the newer ones. I am kinda switching to linux more and more because I don't see much future in Apples closed eco-system for me. Just my main work station is still running on Catalina.
Chris titus made a video "MAKE ARCH STABLE" if im not wrong using lts kernel etc lol... i felt manjaro was stable enough for my non programer uses reading the release notes, also steam os is imutable arch
I didn't have much luck with Manjaro as it seemed to break from updates more often than not. After about the 3rd or 4th time having to re-install (as it quicker than finding the problem), I gave up and went to another distro. Just wasn't for me. I'd rather be working than fixing.
Credit where due, Arch users file bug reports and face issues compared to users of other distros. But Debian is better compared to any other distro, offering the architectures, packages and three different release models!
I'm not saying it's more stable than Debian, however I've been using the same Arch system for 6 years 233days 8hrs and counting. Mmmm I'd say that's NOT BAD 🙂
Well, I have backups and I use Manjaro (there's a SuSE rolling release I'm considering too) instead of pure Arch, so I should be able to avoid the worst bugs. So far, it's been pretty stable.
yeah. first test and update kernel had some error are nothing was written but still old kernel was removed. and did arch boot. ofc not. why not leave old working kernel so can choose LOL
I don't know but ai assistance like chatgpt and bard can help me more on arch linux side than ubuntu and debian I mean they make much lesser error to terminal commands than ubuntu and debian. I fixed a lot of errors on my garuda xfce with google bard and chatgpt. I think the era of only advance users can use arch and debian becoming more obsolete with the help of ai assistance
Arch Linux find it more suitable for many things. Once installed a Debian, but gave me more compatibility issues . For example not good drivers or to say not optimized as should be. Debian based distros isn't for gaming. And that from personal experience. Ubuntu is something else ..is better for gaming than pure Debian kernels. Much more optimized. I use Garuda 2 years. And runs everything 'out of the box' .Loved vanilla Arch too. You build your system as you want. Just need more time for optimizations.
The only control I do for updates is delaying them for 15 days on Windows using register. On my phone I only install manually after 15 days too. It is probably enough time for things to go back to normal before I get the updates. And the security updates are not a problem for me because I don't do anything that important that I need the updates asap.
I fully agree with you but just a short anecdote: I ran Arch for most of the time the last 3 years without any issues and now that I switched to Debian on my work computer, I've had one complete system freeze per week for the last 4 weeks. Had Bookworm already installed before it was officially relased. Also it felt like it was more reliable while it was in Testing. Let's wait for a few months how Debian develops. Oh, and it seems like this is a Steam/Wayland issue...
I have updated windows and it eliminated my os. Afterwards i was unable to install any other os . it was as if microsoft with that update destroyed a working though ageing computer. I was able to use the computer with tails, but could add nothing permanent to it.
I've installed plain Arch a couple times, but I settled on Manjaro instead (Arch-based). I've found it to be more stable and installation is quick and easy.
I installed debian about a week ago. I don't know if this is the default or i configured something stupid but whenever i "apt install (package name)" i would only get a prompt to insert media with firmware version whatever it said. So i go into my apt settings and # the "cd rom" line and try again only to get some error to do with mirrors to download the packages. I never messed with the mirror settings other than telling the net installer to use closest mirror and it obviously installed just fine being a net iso. So i installed arch and so far no issues there lol. One thing I'll say about arch though is I'm not a fan of it's syntax. Why in gods name am i typing -S or -Syu instead of install or update/upgrade? Definitely a first world problem but still annoying as hell.
apt sources file was still expecting the install media, definitely a configuration issue. there are 3 lines you should've uncommented to fix it, while removing the line with cdrom
I like gaming, but less conflict/dependencies resolution means more time to play. Stability is good as a gamer too, if you don't buy new hardware every year. Damn it, started with Manjaro as a "distro for gamer", soooooooo many time lost repairing things. Love Debian.
I would love to see differences between Arch and Debian system rights comparisons. I tried mint and it does not allow adding files to apps like OBS i.e. Themes and it is silly.
Why doesn’t somebody just make an arch based distro with stuff like grub pinned at a stable version? Like have “lts” versions of important packages that don’t really need the latest
Because arch-s purpose is to test latest features by design..actually you can use fedora and you will get newer but stable versions..sadly fedora dosent work similar on any hardware..i didnt have luck..but you can try..technically it is hybrid and most people are extremly satisfied with it.
My view on this question. Debian for server and destop. Arch for laptop :) I am currently thinking about moving everything to Debian 12. Debian 12 is beautiful :D
Its sort of why I started using Fedora. It's pretty up to date and generally pretty stable. I have had a few issues with a couple of updates, but generally they go through fine. And I haven't had any update that stopped me from logging into my system. I can't say that about any Arch install I've used in the past. And it's funny - when you get on the arch forums for help with this sort of thing it's 99% assumed YOU did something to your system. By just updating it, technically yes but bad updates seem a regular occurrence with some Arch distros. And like you said Chris, don't update every day - maybe every 1-2 weeks is good.
On three occasions my Arch was broken after updating. First time it happened, I had no clue. The screen was black. Second time it happened, the bootloader was gone and I couldn't use my keyboard. Third time, something was wrong with the partition and I couldn't boot. So I had to reinstall Arch. After the latest updates it messed up my configurations, so I installed Fedora instead.
Trick is to just not use grub and use systemd-boot instead. It's so much simpler, way fewer things to go wrong. The only problems I've ever experienced with arch are from AUR packages that stopped being maintained.
I think the Arch developers actually have contempt for users of Arch and Arch based distros. They put out updates they know will break systems and then just sit back and laugh at the chaos they cause. Don't get me wrong, I love Arch- I have vanilla Arch on one PC and Cachy OS on another, but Fedora is my daily driver.
Hey Monday, Couldn't find /boot Recovery mode activated, please enter your root password You can also skip this with (Control-D): Oh yes and the keyboard doesn't work, it's great. Well, you can technically fix it by reconfiguring the /boot, with a live USB, but do we really need to do this each now and they when they decide to test in production?
Sorry Chris, I'd have to disagree. You can't say it's unstable due to 1 issue that came from upstream which when logged as a bug upstream was rejected as a change and won't fix! yes I'd agree they should've been more vocal on the matter but to call any distro unstable over 1 issue with 1 package is quite unfair.
how about nowadays? just wondering. For me personally arch has been more stable than other distros but I want debian to work for me soooo bad on my second drive
Just grab Debian if you want to. I have been using Arch for two years and the things Chris mentioned about missing bootloader after updating happened to me twice. It wasn't a pleasant experience to fix that. If it wasn't for the help of users online and some RU-vid videos I would be screwed. Arch is stable. But only a) if you use the LTS kernel, b) you know what you are doing and c) make backups using btfrs and Timeshift. Because in case something goes south, you can always restore your backup using Timeshift. If the bootloader goes poof, then grab an Arch live iso on your bootable USB drive, mount the partition to your live iso, update and then re-install grub. Something like this, is never going to happen in Debian. The Arch team does testing, but due to the irregular update cycle, they less or no testing. Recent and "bleeding edge" software is a different word for "less stable and possibly broken"; it's especially true about the non-LTS Arch kernel. So far my experience with Arch is great. However, for stability reasons I installed on a old laptop Debian to ensure high stability for my mother. I only use Arch because of the AUR and pacman is really great. If you want to use Arch, then make sure to keep a little txt documentation like how to fix something and terminal commands. If you prioritize absolute stability, then Debian is one of the best. You don't even to update Debian more frequently unlike Arch. I can fix stuff in Arch mostly on my own. My only nightmare would be if grub corrupts or removes crucial codes again after updating.
@@forestmanzpedia meh I just grabbed apt instead. My point is Arch works great for me, I can deal with any problem but configuring debian to work with the LG ultra wide monitor is doable, but I'd rather just stick with what I know. And holy shit yeah that is a nightmare lol --_-'
@@experticus9901 I am considering moving away from Arch because I have noticed after updating recently it messed my audio settings so I had to manually install alsa-utils, run alsamixer, choose the audio device and configure the balance so I can hear audio on the left of my headset. Either way, I had a conversation with my friend and he said he needed something stable and recent. Debian holds back package updates just to ensure the stability but by doing so you will have to wait for newer updates that make use of the newest features. If it does interest you then you may consider in the future Fedora. I am thinking about whether to go to NixOS, Nobara (Fedora based), SteamOS (Arch based) or Fedora. Gaming on Linux is not really my highest priority.
@@forestmanzpedia what I did was use Arch as a base (core, extra repos) then Flatpak and Appimage everything incl. multilib programs like Steam, to minimise the risk of pacman -Syu killing your system or giving you unneeded updates. I also tend to not update very often, and setup btrfs snapshots and/or downgrade (with a small package base with little dependencies, this is very doable) id like to use Debian but it has some really bizarre opinionated decisions behind the packages
Linux will always have bugs, limited software support and it's users will keep blaming on companies for not providing so, but in reality it is because Linux is not user friendly so common people don't use Linux at all so companies have no interest whatsoever to develop anything for Linux. (Linux is not even in OS competition) Whereas, Linux should've been extremely user-friendly like Mac and windows. The user who says they are "Professional" and wants freedom and control and No-GUI on the system should have provided the option to customise installation. And I have paid for 16 gigs of ram I don't mind system using 50% of it and providing me functionality.
I totally agree! Last year when arch had that update that wiped out everything i stopped using it :') I switched to fedora and now I'm thinking on going with nix os after watching your videos and live streams. The only thing is i have to learn it and i dont find it easy :))
I haven't had any issues at all with fedora. It feels to stable after coming from an arch based distro and with fedora i didnt have to tweak to many things or have trouble with packages (if you don't include the nix package manager) And personally i like a challange from time to time, especially because i've been using linux on my desktop for only 2 years and i'm eager to learn more about it.
@@juliar8806 Generally Fedora's been great. I'm actually using Ultramarine and it just installs all the extra stuff you need to get going. The only issue I've had with Fedora is it's not playing nice with NTFS partitions. Not sure whats going on there. I still swap between Windows/Linux so need a file system for personal files that's compatible with both. And I don't mind learning as well, but not trying to fix issues while I'm trying to get work done LOL. And Fedora seems that happy middle ground.
I went for a long 3 weeks holiday. When I came back home, ready for work and did system update on my main PC (damn i should not do that when I need to work), and Arch gave me quite a number of errors. Spent few hours to fix that before the actual work .Few months later, I did change to NixOS and nvr look back. :v
@@d3adc3II It makes it a little easier with Linux backup programs like timeshift. But still I get what you're saying. Part of the reason I moved away from Arch and wanted something a little more stable. More time doing what I need to, less time fault finding. Sometimes at the end of the day it was just quicker reinstalling then trying to find what went wrong. I just make sure I have regular full backups.
