Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sonique" data-source="post: 26602004" data-attributes="member: 55225">Arch is a rolling release and debian is a point release. That means Arch gets the latest of everything and Debian only gets the most stable and tested.Chance you will break your Arch after an update is high and you should be ready to fix that if it is broken or you should constanly create restore points so you can go back to previous points if sh** goes south. I don't have the time or patience to do that nonsense and I don't care about getting the 'Latest' so I don't touch arch with a ten foot pole.Its about guys who wants the latest vs guys who wants stability.Arch or Debians is not superior to each other. It is about how you use the OS. Using Arch doesn't magically make you a tech savy person. If you are really good with linux you can use Arch or Debian.Vanilla Arch is used by people who has lots of experience with linux and knows linux and computers in and out. Vanilla debian is also kinda like that but it is used by people who really really care about security. Debian stable is used in servers because of stability and security. But using Debian makes your life difficult without those PPAs.There for if you are a new linux user you should start with something based on ubuntu just because it is not that easy to break your OS by doing something (I managed to totaled it couple of times though). Then when you are comfortable with what you do you can try something like Arch linux, Debian unstable or Debian testing if you want to. But using any of them for the sake of it is stupid.Personally I don't care about maximum security or the latest sh** so I don't use Debian or Arch. Hell once I upgraded my Ubuntu version to the latest LTS version from the previous LTS and some stuff start behaving weirdly (not in OS but in something we built). Then I asked one my friends who is like crazy good when it comes anything related to computers (he uses vanilla Arch since the begining of time and has a Msc in computer science) and he told me that it took him two days to fix it so do a fresh install and be done with it, and we are talking about Ubuntu LTS, the most stable <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/default/P.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":P" title=":P    :P" data-shortname=":P" /> So we don't do kernel upgrades or use Arch anymore for workstations. But Arch is fun just because of the effort that you need to put in to keep the machine alive. But if you are only going to browse the internet then go ahead install any linux version you want, you won't break your OS that frequently. And talking about how slow it is for Ubuntu to change something, it took them 10 freaking years to consider moving from Xorg to Wayland just because Wayland was not stable enough for them <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/default/rofl.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":rofl:" title="ROFL    :rofl:" data-shortname=":rofl:" /> And they are correct.If you are a capable Arch user, Debian unstable/tester branches you deserve respect. That is not something that everyone can do. But if you are using arch without a clue you are a bloody moron. Manjaro is a good starting point if you really don't want to use Debian or Ubuntu for some reason.For fun just search for the meaning of Manjaro and find the reddit result <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/default/lol.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="LOL    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" />Hoplefully I explained it for you clearly and do what is best suited for you. There are no superior linux versions. It is about what you want to do with it <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/default/happy.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":)" title="Happy    :)" data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification: Asuwa dahayen wadi kalama keeyada?

Top Bottom