• chrash0@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    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.

    • laurelraven@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      “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)

    • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      If you are adding sources to Debian you are doing it wrong. Use flatpak or Distrobox although distrobox is still affected