Bit confused about Arch

we're not talking dist-upgrade level "replace everything" updates, but just updating a handful of packages at a time, it takes seconds to do
unlike release distros, which opt to put off major changes and let them build up so in 6 months time, it's a big deal to upgrade, rolling release distros instead work by just updating individual components often, as they get new versions, so each update is small and fast, and potential issues are usually small and quick to sort out as well
if you know what you're doing, no update should take more than 5 minutes (user fuck ups and internet speed notwithstanding)

just install yay which you'll do anyways and then once in a while type yay in your console

install trisquel gnu+linux-libre

>imagine not being excited to update your system and try out what has changed in your programs
that's pretty sad

thats what I always thought about windowslets who complain about having to update their computer, but I guess it's different when it's microsoft doing it

>Constantly updating will sometimes break something
Problems, if any, are rare now and caught quickly. Good practice is to check the latest news on archlinux.org before updating.
Pic related, last manual intervention was a simple fix over a year ago!

>but just updating a handful of packages at a time
this but it's very frequent, since it's cutting edge. if you have a metered connection, make sure you have enough bandwidth to spare. the latest stable kernel is updated often ~75Mb, and it's a good idea to also have the lts kernel installed as well for fall back, so you'll be updating at least 150Mb worth of kernel updates quite regularly along with your other installed packages

Attached: screen-190624-114549.png (1019x238, 33K)

if you think arch is unstable and a gamble to update, then you're in for (pleasant) surprise

update once a week and all will be fine user

Pretty ironic. You used to be able to apply non-service pack tier updates to Windows without being afraid of complete breakage. Now you have to worry about Microsoft issuing updates that are going to break your system.

I'd say upgrading arch every 2 weeks is the best way of updating and keeping a non borked system.

>>Arch will break if you don't update constantly and then suddenly update everything
wrong
>Constantly updating will sometimes break something, make sure you leave yourself some time to troubleshoot before you do updates/upgrades
wrong

glad i could help

>every day
ftfy

>make sure you leave yourself some time to troubleshoot before you do updates/upgrades
only if all of these are true;
- there's an update that requires manual intervention
- you don't read the news to find out the proper method to intervene and instead just pass --force and something explodes as a consequence
- you don't know what you just broke and don't have the expertise to fix it
/then/ you can get stuck on updates, otherwise no

old meme
last breaking change was about year ago archlinux.org/news/
just subscribe to news mailing list to get notified early when something happens
Arch is actually less likely to break since packages are pretty much pure upstream, distros like ubuntu and debian add their own shit on top which is more likely to break

Attached: install fucking arch shinji.png (2300x2877, 1.52M)

In that case, Manjaro could work well. It's Arch-based, but releases updates a little slower than Arch does.

Don't switch to arch

t.arch user who wants to switch to ubuntu

But why? It's not like things work any better over there.

Attached: 1511468851221.png (1920x1200, 2.19M)

>arch doesn't break that often nowadays
But i'd say that it's because entire linux ecosystem became more mature and stable, and not because of arch maintainers.

Arch is weirdly the only distro I've ever seen have consistently smaller upgrade sizes.
>Net upgrade size: -5MB
it's fantastic. You want to keep up to date because keys are actually used properly and rotated out. If you're way way way out of date your system won't have any current keys and will be broken. Otherwise you're fine.

Is arch the purest out of the popular distros? It feels like only pacman and repos are distro specific, everything else is just pure unfiltered upstream you can get on every other distro.

arch to me feels like a toy, it doesn't feel like i'm getting anything done, it's just so customizable, my post is retarded ignore that lol

if by purest you mean minimalistic then i think void is more minimalistic but idk

thats a bunch of bullshit Jow Forums meme words, arch is just like everything else. they make a decision on what they're going to do for maintenance and stick to it.

>If you're way way way out of date your system won't have any current keys and will be broken.
this is what i've found to be the biggest issue with updating after leaving it for several months
to be clear for others, this refers to the cryptographic signatures to used verify that the packages you download are legitimate, not tampered with (checksums, which are also used, can detect corruption, but not ensure they haven't been tampered with, since anybody can generate new checksums, only the maintainer can generate new signatures)
you may have to manually update your package signing key store before you can update

you're probably right, also migrating to systemd instead of fucking up their init scripts every week helped a lot too

Manjaro delays the packages a little so a group of testers uses the software and eventually reports problems.

manjaro introduces its own bugs though

I've been using Arch daily for the last 10 years. The only time I broke it was during the switch to systemd, because I forgot to check the website prior update and got retarded when things started to go wrong.

>from Ubuntu, since I'm sick of reformatting my pc every 2 years just to perform an update
typical retard who doesn't know how to manage an OS. you'll be very welcome in the arch community.

>>Formatting to perform an update
>Fedora doesn't have this issue
This.
Fedora gets a new kernel every couple weeks, and a new version every six months.
It's the stability of an LTS with the bleeding-edgeness of a rolling release.

i only tried fedora once, it was a release where the installer wrecked drives. never again, plus fuck footfags.

The Arch Linux apologists are just as delusional as the intelshills on this board.

Attached: soranowot111o.jpg (402x400, 65K)

>installing a whole other program just to update your shit
not that i'm bashing yay or anything, it's a good piece of software but you could just make an alias in your bashrc to automatically -Syu for the same effect