Don't discount the idea of using stable distros like Debian or Ubuntu, I know that in the Linux community there's a lot of status associated with using "complex" distros like Arch, but you still shouldn't let that influence your choice of OS
@LinuxLounge Depends on the definition of "stable". If you mean stable as static, then Debian stable fits that definition. If you mean stable as "it doesn't break", it depends instead on thoudsands of different things, hardware included.
Most of the times you hear Arch users say that "my distro was more stable than that other one". They meant it didn't break for them. But it just depends on the user, he simply didn't screw up with the distro.
@marcosg @LinuxLounge Yeah, I've been using arch for close to 12 years by now, and it has been the distro that has broken the least for me of all that I've used, I'm sure it is because I've become a better linux user through the time, but it really doesn't break easily. It's sad that so many people seem to spread fud about it without knowing what they talk about.
I'm of course not talking down to other systems, debian and ubuntu are both great, just not for me on my personal machine.
I had a bit of issues on Arch that I had not on Fedora, that's why I am using it instead of Arch.
I'm not blaming the distro, since my hardware, experience, package selection and configuration are quite unique to be probably the only one having those on such machine, with such packages. It's my fault when something wrong happens.
I am simply more used to Fedora, guess it's the same for other people and other distributions.
Also I have a small setup with just the programs and wms that I use, so I have less moving parts, the less that is installed on a system the less it will break :)
@LinuxLounge How is Arch complex? compared to slackware and crux sure, but arch is way simpler than something like Debian and ubuntu, something that can make it more difficult to work with if you don't know it well, but calling it complex is disingenous.
@sotolf I mean it's more complex to install and maintain.
Generally in my experience Debian is rock solid whereas I've had Arch break numerous times
@LinuxLounge It's way simpler to install, harder yes, but not more complex, you basically just prepare your harddrive and start the package manager to install stuff in a chroot yourself, and then configure the stuff you need.
Debian is complex in that it has an installer that does loads of stuff, don't mix up easy and simple and complex and hard.
The good thing about arch is that you know your system, and you're equipped with the tools to fix things.
@LinuxLounge tried to go that route with OpenSuse on an older laptop for my daughter, soooo sloooow. Manjaro with Xfce now its scootin' along
@LinuxLounge I use both stable and rolling release distros on my laptop: Pop!_OS and Manjaro. If one thing doesn't run on one, it will on the other. Also, if something breaks during an upgrade, Timeshift is your friend.
@LinuxLounge this is a good point but tbh for desktop use & in my experience there’s more to gain from using a more actively updated distro like Fedora or Manjaro than there is to lose in stability - particularly if you use your PC for more than surfing the web.
Fosstodon is an English speaking Mastodon instance that is open to anyone who is interested in technology; particularly free & open source software.