Which one breaks more frequently?

which one breaks more frequently?
both seems like a huge meme

Attached: 1566203241205.png (720x540, 68K)

Attached: sdofijsodfjd.png (437x325, 127K)

LTS or non LTS matters little in this case, the testing is the same it just has longer duration support for companies. It's still Debian Sid/testing with half the testing that Stable gets. It's better than Windows but that's not high praise. Use CentOS/Slackware/Debian if you don't wanna use distros that have a risk of shitting themselves otherwise pick any other linux distro. Arch has improved a lot but it's also luck of the draw. You can get a year with no breaks and the month after you get fucked every week. It's a risk, some people find it worthy, others don't.

Meant to quote OP

Is there a benefit to using Arch over more stable distros? Is having the latest packages always available worth the headache, or is there something to it I'm missing?

If your job/hobby/hardware/whatever relies on bleeding edge software arch offers benefits over stable distros. If you don't need/care for any of those, no point installing it.

If having the latest packages isn't useful to you then no.

Literally Debian. Switched from Gentoo to Debian because didn't want to invest much more time in it, and it can't be that bad right? Yeah, had more issues with Debian in 5 months than in 4 years of Gentoo.

I'm using Arch because it's the closest thing we have to a modern Slackware with systemd. It doesn't get in your way when you manually configure your system and you don't have to fight some automation software over every change.

I've used Mint and Arch. Neither have been "headaches", but for me having the latest version of everything is super liberating and convenient. I don't have to worry about using previous compilers or needing a feature that I can't use.
I do a lot of programming so it's more useful for me than others. If you think it about it seems like a really dumb idea to develop software using a toolchain that is months out of date.
Also in terms of headaches, stable releases seem much more annoying, e.g. when a new version of Ubuntu comes out or when you need to manually install the latest Python version.
Arch has never broken for me, seems to be something that happened more in the past.

I find this highly doubtful unless you ran Debian Sid. Stable doesn't "give" you issues, whatever issue is there, is already there and there's ways to go around it, but no new issue will show up for 2-3 years.

Yeah Sid of course. Even having the installer pick up an existing partition scheme was a pain in the ass and the installation failed a couple of times with no helpful error messages (graphical install yay). I guess Debian stable is like the perfect boomer distro for just browsing and not really using the system but other than that I'm not happy with it desu.

Jesus user
>I guess Debian stable is like the perfect boomer distro for just browsing and not really using the system but other than that I'm not happy with it desu.
No, Debian stable is literally used and focused for WORK. Server work, daily work, sysadmin work, etc. What the hell are you smoking? Sid is the one you use to "browse" and explore/break things.

>Ubuntu
Only breaks if you're a complete fucking moron
>Debian
Never breaks if you use Stable but you have ancient fucking software; Testing and Unstable break all the goddamn time
>Gentoo
HAHAHA defective by design
>Arch
Breaks quite a bit

Arch is actually a lot easier to manage than distros that updates once every blue moon like Debian because things will inevitably break every time you update your packages, at least with Arch you can update often which means you can update your config breakages one at a time, with Debian you're gonna have to deal with a shitload of breaking changes when it's time for a major upgrade.

This is bullshit, this never happened to me on Debian and I've used it since wheezy. Ubuntu tends to break on upgrades sometimes, not Debian

Probably Arch. I've been using Ubuntu for the last 7 years, and it's never broke, or fucked up at all. It's actually amazing. I remember being on Windows, and software updates freezing my fucking computer/laptop, having to shut down and restart, etc. Was a nightmare. Ubuntu seriously works fucking amazingly.

Imagine being too much of a coward for Mr. Pacman -Syu's Wild Ride.

everything but Arch

Not ubuntu

I hate the people who say
>”I use arch for the AUR I don’t care about bleeding edge stuff, it’s just a plus”
Guess what, the AUR (or gentoo ebuilds) is so great because you can just look at the fucking PKGBUILD and simply follow it to install the same shit on your machine if you really find some obscure software

In the past few years, only curl updates have given me trouble on Arch.

I really wish that package maintainer would test his patches/releases with rtorrent before pushing to stable.

Debian Sid and Testing are two different things. Testing is the maturing future Stable release. Sid is always on the edge.

>Sid is always on the edge
>Gnome is still 3.30
>Cinnamon is still 3.8
>Plasma is still 5.14

Well, it's relative.

Oh wow lmao, just use arch or arch based distro lmao

software's being tied in to repositories is a fundemental flaw in Linux.

Repo slavery is real and solutions like appimage and flatpak are ignored. Nix is too early to tell if it will stick around, it could just be a meme distro that dies in a few years.

Arch without question