i think it’s a matter of perspective. if i’m deploying some containers or servers on a system that has well defined dependencies then i think Debian wins in a stability argument.
for me, i’m installing a bunch of experimental or bleeding edge stuff that is hard to manage in even a non LTS Debian system. i don’t need my CUDA drivers to be battle tested, and i don’t want to add a bunch of sketchy links to APT because i want to install a nightly version of neovim with my package manager. Arch makes that stuff simple, reliable, and stable, at least in comparison.
“Stable” doesn’t mean “doesn’t crash”, it means “low frequency of changes”. Debian only makes changing updates every few years, and you can wait a few more years before even taking those changes without losing security support while Arch makes changing updates pretty much every time a package you have installed does.
In no way is Arch more stable than Debian (other than maybe Debian Unstable/Sid, but even then it’s likely a bit of a wash)
Just Arch users being delusional. Every recent thread that had Arch mentioned in the comments has some variation of “Arch is the most stable distro” or “Stable distros have more issues than Arch”.
It literally does though. Stable doesn’t mean bug free. It means unchanging. That’s what the term “stable distro” actually means. That the software isn’t being updated except for security patches. When people say stable distro, that is what they are trying to communicate. That means the software will be old. That’s what stable actually means.
How the hell is arch more stable than Debian?
i think it’s a matter of perspective. if i’m deploying some containers or servers on a system that has well defined dependencies then i think Debian wins in a stability argument.
for me, i’m installing a bunch of experimental or bleeding edge stuff that is hard to manage in even a non LTS Debian system. i don’t need my CUDA drivers to be battle tested, and i don’t want to add a bunch of sketchy links to APT because i want to install a nightly version of neovim with my package manager. Arch makes that stuff simple, reliable, and stable, at least in comparison.
“Stable” doesn’t mean “doesn’t crash”, it means “low frequency of changes”. Debian only makes changing updates every few years, and you can wait a few more years before even taking those changes without losing security support while Arch makes changing updates pretty much every time a package you have installed does.
In no way is Arch more stable than Debian (other than maybe Debian Unstable/Sid, but even then it’s likely a bit of a wash)
If you are adding sources to Debian you are doing it wrong. Use flatpak or Distrobox although distrobox is still affected
Just Arch users being delusional. Every recent thread that had Arch mentioned in the comments has some variation of “Arch is the most stable distro” or “Stable distros have more issues than Arch”.
Old does not mean stable
It literally does though. Stable doesn’t mean bug free. It means unchanging. That’s what the term “stable distro” actually means. That the software isn’t being updated except for security patches. When people say stable distro, that is what they are trying to communicate. That means the software will be old. That’s what stable actually means.
Stable means stable
Stable is the building horses are kept in
True, but it is also out of reach of Arch users
The floor is covered in horse shit. Sounds like Arch to me!
(I kid, I kid… I run arch btw)