Well, for the sake of clarity, lets separate stability and reliability? Stability means unchanging. Reliable means it won’t crash or behave in unexpected ways.
If you have a better word for the concept of unchanging functionality and interfaces, I’m open to using that in this context. In describing distros, I’ve only come across the word stable for this. Reliable is a wider concept to me, and also includes being relatively free of bugs. A stable distro can still be buggy, if it’s the same bugs tomorrow as yesterday.
You wrote “It is a myth that arch is unstable”. Arch, being rolling release, is by definition changing. This is, imho, the opposite of stable. This is why it’s important to use precise words. I have no interest in continuing this discussion since you don’t seem to argue in good faith.
So, rolling release means Arch is ever changing, thus its unstable? You forget that other distros still change - with bigger, less regular updates which are often more disruptive and just as dangerous.
There is truth in saying bleeding edge causes problems but that’s down to the user, not Arch. Arch assumes that the user knows how to prevent a cluster fuck.
And, there are ways to mitigate such a cluster fuck. Arch LTS, update less frequently, avoid AUR etc.
We only need one. And that’s Arch.
Do you think you would have that opinion if you ran arch on mission critical production servers for a couple of years?
Well it was a joke, but it is a myth that Arch is unstable.
Well, for the sake of clarity, lets separate stability and reliability? Stability means unchanging. Reliable means it won’t crash or behave in unexpected ways.
And how do you propose we do that? Is reliability not dependent on stability?
No, it means how stable something is. Literally.
Funny, that’s how most folks around here describe stability.
You’re just using words to be honest.
If you have a better word for the concept of unchanging functionality and interfaces, I’m open to using that in this context. In describing distros, I’ve only come across the word stable for this. Reliable is a wider concept to me, and also includes being relatively free of bugs. A stable distro can still be buggy, if it’s the same bugs tomorrow as yesterday.
Now you’re just using more words, which means you’re either a bot or you’ve lost your train of thought. You’re rambling.
What is your actual point here?
You wrote “It is a myth that arch is unstable”. Arch, being rolling release, is by definition changing. This is, imho, the opposite of stable. This is why it’s important to use precise words. I have no interest in continuing this discussion since you don’t seem to argue in good faith.
So, rolling release means Arch is ever changing, thus its unstable? You forget that other distros still change - with bigger, less regular updates which are often more disruptive and just as dangerous.
There is truth in saying bleeding edge causes problems but that’s down to the user, not Arch. Arch assumes that the user knows how to prevent a cluster fuck.
And, there are ways to mitigate such a cluster fuck. Arch LTS, update less frequently, avoid AUR etc.
In the end tho its just easier to neg on Arch.
deleted by creator