Your experience with "instability of Arch"

Dirtnap · 2023-09-27 03:21:19

I've only been with Arch with KDE Plasma for a month or so, so anything that goes wrong is automatically user error as far as I'm concerned.
*I'm* unstable, not Arch. I've only had an issue with a failure to boot on the lts kernel with Nvidia utils installed but I'm assuming that's Nvidia's fault (I think everything should be Nvidia's fault) and am considering just going with AMD to avoid future issues.

luvr · 2023-10-09 08:56:23

Trilby wrote:

It sounds like you have lingering problems you need to fix rather than ignore in services not properly shutting down or starting up. That is a user-error, not a problem with the distro.

In my experience, it's not a user error, but it looks more like a systemd issue. It happens to me every now and then on Ubuntu as well, but never on Slackware.

If your BIOS really takes 15 minutes, that sucks - I'd be surprised if that was normal / expected - but I've never used that particular machine.

I'm not surprised; on some server-class hardware that really is expected.

All in all, it sounds like arch linux is not a good fit for your use case. That's a perfectly reasonable position to hold. What is *not* reasonable is taking a tool, using completely against all recommendations and guidelines for that tool, and then complaining that the tool isn't working well.

Well, the OP did ask for personal experiences, didn't they, and this is a personal experience, isn't it? I'm perfectly willing to accept that ArchLinux may not be your cup of tea, and it may well be so because you're trying to use it against all recommendations and guidelines, and contrary to the philosophy. It's perfectly fine to point that out as well, but still, it's useful info for the OP: some user has quite a bit of trouble with ArchLinux, some other user points out that the reason may well be the way in which they use ArchLinux. The OP can now consider whether they would attempt to use ArchLinux in a similar, apparently wrong, way, and evaluate the probability of running into the same issues or not. It all helps them making an informed decision - which is a win, however you look at it.

c00ter · 2023-10-09 15:12:10

I have been using Linux for a long time, starting when the kernel hit a stable 1.0 (it was a disastrus experience). Overall, Linux has been about as stable as Windows since the early 2000s. I can't speak for MacOS. I've been using Arch for a little over 10 years, and it has been my experience that Arch Linux is as stable as most distributions, and better than some. But that is all subjective. What is objective--you can read the forums--is the experience and stability of the indiviidual user. There are some real weirdos out there doing weird things in Linux! (But I've grown to love and tolerate them, now I'm 71.)

That being said: Networkmanager. Love it when it works, hate it when it breaks, in ANY distribution. Or GNOME (in Arch) since about vers. 3.24, if I remember correctly.

Last edited by c00ter (2023-10-09 15:13:49)

luvr · 2023-10-10 09:03:42

seth wrote:

it inevitably gets stuck at some task with an "unlimited" timeout and sits there until I notice, so after a minute or so I give up and power cycle the machine
This however will likely get you filesystem corruptions that will delay subsequent boots - or cause a disaster…

Instead of forcing a hard reset by pushing the power button, you may want to try the REISUB trick, which is a gentler way to force a restart: Hold down the <Alt>-<SysRq> keys and slowly type REISUB to force a safe restart. (As a side note, "REISUB" happens to read "BUSIER" when reversed.)
Alternatively, type REISUO to force a safe shutdown.
In case this trick doesn't work, you can still fall back to a hard reset.

ayylmaonade · 2023-10-27 10:48:49

I've never had problems with Arch itself having outright instability issues over the course of the 3-4 years I've been daily driving it. Any issues that I have encountered are ones created by my own mistakes. I recently couldn't boot the kernel because I had timeshift set to create an obscene amount of btrfs snapshots, which lead to low enough disk space that even the kernel couldn't install. Chrooted in, deleted the snapshots and re-installed the kernel. Fixed in minutes. The idea that Arch is inherently unstable is a falsehood, and can probably be attributed to some confusion regarding the meaning of the word "unstable" in the Linux world -- particularly when it comes to new users. I'd also say that the reputation and almost "meme-status" Arch has reached contributes to this, too.

Arch is as stable as you make it. If you know what you're doing, you're unlikely to have problems. Sure, somebody could argue there's the occasional breakage due to updates, but they're just that -- occasional. Not to mention, being a DIY distro, you should be competent enough to know how to repair your system if an issue does occur. Otherwise, don't use Arch. In regards to keeping up to date with Arch news, I use this forum, the archlinux subreddit & general Linux media reporting.

For an out of the box installer, you can use the archinstall script provided with the ISO which will get you up and running quickly and easily. Don't let elitists fool you into thinking you're "cheating" by using this script -- it's a tool, and if the tool works for your needs, use it. If you're looking for a graphical installer, then there are options out there for installing base arch with calamares.

Lone_Wolf · 2023-10-27 12:32:08

For an out of the box installer, you can use the archinstall script provided with the ISO which will get you up and running quickly and easily. Don't let elitists fool you into thinking you're "cheating" by using this script -- it's a tool, and if the tool works for your needs, use it.

There are lots of valid reasons why the archinstall script is not a good tool for newbie users, 'cheating ' or 'elitism' are not among them.

If you're looking for a graphical installer, then there are options out there for installing base arch with calamares.

Make sure the author of the calamares installer is available for help.

I agree with the rest of your post, especially the 2nd paragraph.

Welcome to archlinux forums.

Last edited by Lone_Wolf (2023-10-27 12:33:04)

Fixxer · 2023-10-27 17:51:07

I recommended a friend Linux Mint, but he faced problems using Kdenlive (probably flatpaks messing something up). I'm used to Arch, so I was tempted to install him a beginner-friendly Arch distro. But it's often said that Arch Linux is unstable because of its rolling release cycle.

Avoid clones, called "derivatives". As far as I know they ineptly add some modifications, own repos, own configs and with time "so called maintainers" have problems with adjusting their wonder distros to changes with Arch, etc.

If you want him to use Arch, help him, install by hand with all required software, configs, etc.

If he is a beginner, show him OpenSUSE, Fedora.

Help him to check hardware compatibility, especially video drivers, wifi, etc.

c00ter · 2023-10-28 11:58:03

Lone_Wolf wrote:

There are lots of valid reasons why the archinstall script is not a good tool for newbie users, 'cheating ' or 'elitism' are not among them.

I am familiar with Archinstall. I test script changes monthly just for fun. I cannot think of any valid reason for newcomers to use this tool, which provides only the basics, leaving it to the user to complete & configure many items for a fully-functioning system even if they've chosen and installed a complete DE such as plasma-meta. IMO it would leave a bad taste in the mouth of anyone expecting something more, and not give them a good representation of Arch overall. I don't know how else to put it. It's a good script, it really is. Just not for newcomers.

sammiev · 2023-10-28 12:51:23

c00ter wrote:

I am familiar with Archinstall. I test script changes monthly just for fun. I cannot think of any valid reason for newcomers to use this tool, which provides only the basics, leaving it to the user to complete & configure many items for a fully-functioning system even if they've chosen and installed a complete DE such as plasma-meta. IMO it would leave a bad taste in the mouth of anyone expecting something more, and not give them a good representation of Arch overall. I don't know how else to put it. It's a good script, it really is. Just not for newcomers.

I never tried Archinstall as it can be installed in about 15 minutes without a DE. The first time install took me at least an hour which included a lot of reading which was all provided from the wiki.
I have an old laptop or two laying around and may take the Archinstall for a test drive in a few days. As always, I enjoy reading your post.

ayylmaonade · 2023-11-01 11:40:43

Lone_Wolf wrote:

For an out of the box installer, you can use the archinstall script provided with the ISO which will get you up and running quickly and easily. Don't let elitists fool you into thinking you're "cheating" by using this script -- it's a tool, and if the tool works for your needs, use it.
There are lots of valid reasons why the archinstall script is not a good tool for newbie users, 'cheating ' or 'elitism' are not among them.
If you're looking for a graphical installer, then there are options out there for installing base arch with calamares.
Make sure the author of the calamares installer is available for help.
I agree with the rest of your post, especially the 2nd paragraph.

Welcome to archlinux forums.

I agree with everything you said -- the part I mentioned about elitists talking down to people who have used the archinstall script was just me being playful. I've used the script myself in a few VM's just for testing, and it's rather iffy for sure. Not something I'd use myself, but I've heard both sides of the story. Folks saying that the script worked extremely well for them, and then others saying the exact opposite. It just seems that if you're somebody who did use the script, you'll get the odd person trying to talk down to you because you didn't do it the "right way"

seth · 2023-11-01 13:24:40

That's usually only the stance when you come up with "i used archinstall and now my broken mess of a system doesn't start and i don't know why"
Why would anyone talk about this if there's no problem to talk about to begin with?

It's perfectly fine* to use the script, it's just not a shortcut that prevents you from having to read the wiki - despite people frequently confusing it for that.

*though there're some concerning bugs about leaving around plaintext passwords and not using it is probably faster anyway - if you know what you're doing

Trilby · 2023-11-01 13:31:51

When someone does something in a manner that is not expected to consistently give good results, and then they don't get good results, pointing to the cause of the problem is not "elitism", it is just common sense.

A friend of mine wanted to lose weight, so he started eating a stick of butter mixed with a cup of sugar for breakfast every morning. After a few months he had gained far more weight and was not doing so well. I told him this was likely do to the butter-sugar diet plan as that was a dumb thing to do in the first place. He said I was just being an "elitist".

Of course that didn't happen. Because that would be ridiculous, right?

ayylmaonade · 2023-11-02 10:24:08

Trilby wrote:

When someone does something in a manner that is not expected to consistently give good results, and then they don't get good results, pointing to the cause of the problem is not "elitism", it is just common sense.
A friend of mine wanted to lose weight, so he started eating a stick of butter mixed with a cup of sugar for breakfast every morning. After a few months he had gained far more weight and was not doing so well. I told him this was likely do to the butter-sugar diet plan as that was a dumb thing to do in the first place. He said I was just being an "elitist".
Of course that didn't happen. Because that would be ridiculous, right?

Clearly hyperbole goes right over your head, and ironically, going on and on about something that doesn't matter just to satisfy your pedantism is partly what I was referring to.

And to get out of in front of you before you respond telling me that archinstall does matter, I'm saying that this argument doesn't matter - not the script itself. What a silly waste of time getting upset about being called an "elitist" - now let's stop spamming this thread with nonsense that has nothing to do with the question.

Just stop being exhausting, thanks.

Last edited by ayylmaonade (2023-11-02 10:36:55)

seth · 2023-11-02 11:03:37

So your stance is that you get to counter an argument ad hominem, hurl insults and then demand the insulted person to shut the fuck up in advance, because they they're unworthy of exhausting you?

Do you want to be treated by the same standard?

c00ter · 2023-11-02 12:36:40

I did not sign in this morning to read childish posts. Take it outside!

ayylmaonade · 2023-11-03 11:25:03

seth wrote:

So your stance is that you get to counter an argument ad hominem, hurl insults and then demand the insulted person to shut the fuck up in advance, because they they're unworthy of exhausting you?
Do you want to be treated by the same standard?

Please show me where I "hurled insults" and told them to "shut the fuck up" -- I did neither of those things. But somebody getting upset over the word "elitist" when I already clarified in my second post that it was a joke & merely hyperbole is silly - hell, I even said I agreed with them and expected that to be the end of it. But no, instead they decide to be childish and continue a completely pointless argument because they're upset over a word I used as a joke. And as I said, I clarified exactly what I meant in my second response.

When somebody wants to act all high & mighty towards me despite me being completely civil, of course I'm going to respond back with the same tone, what do you expect? Since you believe I hurled insults and told them to shut the fuck up -- allow me to clarify something for you. Saying somebody is participating in pedantism is simply saying they're beiong extremely pedantic. Which they were, ignoring my actual point in my post and instead focusing on a word I used as a joke. Oh, and I never once said they were "unworthy" of exhuasting me. God, you love putting words in peoples mouths, huh? It's exhausting when people like this in the Arch community act like arseholes towards new people on the forum. The dude went out of his way to misunderstand what I said just so he could have his little hissy fit.

It was quite clear what I meant, especially after I clarified further in my second post. Shit like this is the exact reason the Arch community has such a bad name.

Cheerio.

dakota · 2023-11-03 12:28:32

With all due respect, I believe you are misinterpreting Trilby's tone and point.

At the risk of being 'pedantic', I'll say that subtle differences in word choice can profoundly affect how others interpret one's post.

Trilby wrote:

When someone does something in a manner that is not expected to consistently give good results, and then they don't get good results, pointing to the cause of the problem is not "elitism", it is just common sense.

I don't believe this sentence refers to you at all. It is a general statement about cause and effect and refers to some hypothetical someone: a person who installed Arch using the installer, didn't like the results, complained, was told that using the installer is not without risk, and then further complained about Arch elitism. [Believe it or not, this happens a lot on these fora.]

On the other hand...

ayylmaonade wrote:

Clearly hyperbole goes right over your head

... is a statement specifically directed toward Trilby. [I don't know about Trilby, but I would consider this an insult.]

As is...

now let's stop spamming this thread with nonsense

My interpretation (which might not be what you intended): "stop spamming this thread" and "just stop being exhausting" = "shut the fuck up".

[As an aside, I'll say that I don't think Seth's first post was directed at you, either.]

I just wanted to comment that language is very difficult, especially humour (which translates awkwardly into other languages and is easy to miss when reading quickly).

I could totally be wrong about all of this, so please don't take it personally.

Cheers,

Trilby · 2023-11-03 13:27:45

So when you say completely false and inflammatory things you can take them back as "just a joke", but when called out as being incorrect you feel unjustly insulted. Got it.

Last edited by Trilby (2023-11-03 13:28:12)

seth · 2023-11-03 13:52:36

Please show me where I "hurled insults" and told them to "shut the fuck up"

Trilby wrote:

When someone does something in a manner that is not expected to consistently give good results, and then they don't get good results, pointing to the cause of the problem is not "elitism", it is just common sense.

Your response wrote:

hyperbole goes right over your head, and ironically, going on and on about something that doesn't matter just to satisfy your pedantism … a silly waste of time getting upset about being called an "elitist"

and you wrote:

stop spamming this thread with nonsense that has nothing to do with the question.
Just stop being exhausting

Ftr, I didn't assume nor did I understand Trilby initially felt addressed by the repeated "elitist" reference, which you also doubled down quite some and then stressed its direction at Trilby - for it being a mere joke.

As you wrote:

Oh, and I never once said they were "unworthy" of exhuasting me

No, you merely demanded him to stop being it… based on nothing, I take?
Speaking of being pedantic… did you notice that my post whas phrased as a question?

And you wrote:

The dude went out of his way to misunderstand what I said just so he could have his little hissy fit.

Where? What did Trilby misunderstand and where did he throw a "fit"?
Do you mean because his illustrative example was maybe… a hyperbole?

You didn't answer my other question, btw.:
Do you want to be treated by the standards you're setting here?
Yes or no?

ayylmaonade · 2023-11-04 16:04:57

Trilby wrote:

So when you say completely false and inflammatory things you can take them back as "just a joke", but when called out as being incorrect you feel unjustly insulted. Got it.

False and inflammatory things? No, what I said wasn't inflammatory towards anybody other than said "elitists" which shouldn't be a problem if you're not an elitist, as you seem to claim -- not to mention the fact I used quotations which are rather indicative of you know... a quote. Or in other words, me repeating the phrasing of something other people like to use. You already agreed with my post as you said in your first response, with exception to the "elitist" part, which I then clarified in my follow up post, to which you decided you'd act as if I'm a child who needs something broken down with examples given as if I'm incapable of understanding it myself. The argument could've ended with my second post, as it was rather clear what I was trying to say. But no, you decided to intentionally misunderstand and ignore the explanation given as to keep this dick-swinging contest going on for a little while longer -- which was absolutely unnecessary.

Now, as for my apparent "false and inflammatory" posts, let's not act like you weren't trying to be a smart-ass with your response to my second post with your losing weight analogy, despite me saying I agree with your post entirely, and that's where this should've ended. And let's also not act like "true elitists" don't exist within the Arch world, and especially this forum. Unless, of course, you want to straight up pretend that my very own personal experience with said "elitists" is also "false and inflammatory" -- as I already stated before, in my several years of running Arch, and since the existence of archinstall, and the emergence of base Arch calamares installers, I've seen both sides of the coin. People getting absolutely dogged on because they used the guided installer instead of installing arch "the right way" or "the proper way"

As I'm sure many of us Arch users know, Arch Linux has a reputation for having an unwelcoming community, something I don't agree with fully, but something I can definitely recognise -- especially after this ridiculous argument with you. By making a mere joke based in hyperbole, which I said due to my experiences with these exact types of people, and the tendency for others to label said people as "elitists" -- I was simply trying to warn OP that he's somewhat likely to encounter these types of people at some point. Especially if he decides to seek help on this forum, or somewhere like r/archlinux. I didn't want OP to feel discouraged by these types of people, if they ended up encountering any. It wouldn't be the first, nor the second, nor the third time that I've seen somebody seek help about some arch related problems, and then getting upset at particular users for just straight up being mean, essentially for no reason at all. And let's be very clear, somebody using quotations is just that -- a quote. Therefore, I didn't "take back" anything, because there was nothing to take back.

I'm not sure why you decided to die on this hill, as we could've both gone our separate ways without feeling "inflammed" by one another, and I'm sure we're both tired by this point. Check this out: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php … 6#p2129706

Last edited by ayylmaonade (2023-11-04 16:58:27)

ayylmaonade · 2023-11-04 16:17:14

You didn't answer my other question, btw.:
Do you want to be treated by the standards you're setting here?
Yes or no?

The standards I'm setting? It's not like I was the one who said to Trillby that I completely agree with his post in my own second post in this thread, or wait, no, it was! I didn't continue this for absolutely no reason, nor did I intentionally continue to misunderstand the point of somebody's post even after it was clarified by them. This could've all been over with my second post, but nope, it just had to continue for a reason that 'God' only knows.

It's no wonder that there are very popular, and very regular posts on other platforms about how half of the people on this forum go out of their way to make new users (or even new posters) feel unwelcome.

Last edited by ayylmaonade (2023-11-04 16:29:19)

ayylmaonade · 2023-11-04 16:17:46

(Whoops, forum submit button bugged out a 'lil there and double-posted from my end, but I'll use this as an opportunity to say that I won't be posting here again. I'd rather go back to using this place as a read-only help resource, rather than a place for legitimate discussion. And I know, I won't be missed -- don't worry Seth, I don't need you inflating your post count even more by telling me such.)

Last edited by ayylmaonade (2023-11-04 16:30:04)

seth · 2023-11-04 16:31:01

your response to my second post with your losing weight analogy

Is this what this shit is about?
Because unless you're a bit sensitive itr, I really don't see why you'd feel triggered by Trilby's post which, at it's core and only tangetially related to your post, points out *why* a critical stance towards the installer isn't "elitist". If anything, it clarifies your now claimed tongue in cheek position for a future reader.

And "everybody" didn't turn against you but maybe was pointing out that you got increasingly aggressive and entitled in your responses. A pattern that so far unfortunately seems to persist.

It's not like I was the one who said to Trillby that I completely agree with his post in my own second post in this thread, or wait, no, it was!

You might be confusing a Parrot for a Puppy here…

ayylmaonade · 2023-11-04 16:57:25

seth wrote:

your response to my second post with your losing weight analogy
Is this what this shit is about?
Because unless you're a bit sensitive itr, I really don't see why you'd feel triggered by Trilby's post which, at it's core and only tangetially related to your post, points out *why* a critical stance towards the installer isn't "elitist". If anything, it clarifies your now claimed tongue in cheek position for a future reader.
And "everybody" didn't turn against you but maybe was pointing out that you got increasingly aggressive and entitled in your responses. A pattern that so far unfortunately seems to persist.
It's not like I was the one who said to Trillby that I completely agree with his post in my own second post in this thread, or wait, no, it was!
You might be confusing a Parrot for a Puppy here…

I wouldn't define it as triggered, more so annoyed. To continue parroting on at me after I've already clarified what I meant is just a complete waste of time, and I see that you've misunderstood (or not read) my posts correctly if you believe I'm critiquing merely having a critical stance on archinstall. Hell, I'd say even I have a relatively critical stance on it myself.

What I was trying to say is that OP, who is presumably a new-comer to Arch or maybe even Linux in its entirety, should not be discouraged by anybody who has, or may potentially tell them that they inherently shouldn't use archinstall because it's simply not the "old way/right way/proper way" to do things -- all of which are things that I've seen folks say to people who seek guidance or advice on the install of Arch. That's literally my entire point here. I'm of the opinion that people who are completely new to Linux shouldn't use the installer, as it has a tendency to bork stuff up on the odd occasion. However I even wrote in my original post that if it's the right tool for you, use it.

And you're right, my phrasing and overall tone in my 2nd response to Trillby was out of line, however (and this is not an excuse) at the time it seemed as if Trillby was coming at me with a similar energy - especially as I stand by the belief that it was rather clear what I meant when I referred to elitists. I believe they were intentionally misunderstanding what I wrote as an excuse to keep an argument going, or to "one up" me.

As I'm sure nobody here wants to continue hijacking this thread and continue this argument, I offer my apologies to everybody involved for that post, and I'll conduct myself better in the future. Assuming I come back, that is.

Last edited by ayylmaonade (2023-11-04 17:00:02)

WorMzy · 2023-11-04 17:41:16

I think we're done here.

Closing.

Arch Linux

#26 2023-09-27 03:21:19

Re: Your experience with "instability of Arch"

#27 2023-10-09 08:56:23

Re: Your experience with "instability of Arch"

#28 2023-10-09 15:12:10

Re: Your experience with "instability of Arch"

#29 2023-10-10 09:03:42

Re: Your experience with "instability of Arch"

#30 2023-10-27 10:48:49

Re: Your experience with "instability of Arch"

#31 2023-10-27 12:32:08

Re: Your experience with "instability of Arch"

#32 2023-10-27 17:51:07

Re: Your experience with "instability of Arch"

#33 2023-10-28 11:58:03

Re: Your experience with "instability of Arch"

#34 2023-10-28 12:51:23

Re: Your experience with "instability of Arch"

#35 2023-11-01 11:40:43

Re: Your experience with "instability of Arch"

#36 2023-11-01 13:24:40

Re: Your experience with "instability of Arch"

#37 2023-11-01 13:31:51

Re: Your experience with "instability of Arch"

#38 2023-11-02 10:24:08

Re: Your experience with "instability of Arch"

#39 2023-11-02 11:03:37

Re: Your experience with "instability of Arch"

#40 2023-11-02 12:36:40

Re: Your experience with "instability of Arch"

#41 2023-11-03 11:25:03

Re: Your experience with "instability of Arch"

#42 2023-11-03 12:28:32

Re: Your experience with "instability of Arch"

#43 2023-11-03 13:27:45

Re: Your experience with "instability of Arch"

#44 2023-11-03 13:52:36

Re: Your experience with "instability of Arch"

#45 2023-11-04 16:04:57

Re: Your experience with "instability of Arch"

#46 2023-11-04 16:17:14

Re: Your experience with "instability of Arch"

#47 2023-11-04 16:17:46

Re: Your experience with "instability of Arch"

#48 2023-11-04 16:31:01

Re: Your experience with "instability of Arch"

#49 2023-11-04 16:57:25

Re: Your experience with "instability of Arch"

#50 2023-11-04 17:41:16

Re: Your experience with "instability of Arch"

Board footer