[SOLVED] Does anyone really have a "rock stable" Arch?

app4des · 2009-08-18 12:32:23

Arch is extremely cutting edge most times, which makes it, stability-wise the *worst* linux distribution around (but the *best* in getting new software in repos). Debian unstable, fedora rawhide etc are not supposed to be normally used so they don't count. Arch is supposed to be used that way and you have no other option. If Arch Stable existed we could compare something.

If you are looking for "stability and rolling release" distro, the only option I think is Gentoo, but not many have that much time for maintaining.

Nepherte · 2009-08-18 13:37:27

While Arch Linux delivers brand new software, I've never encountered a problem I couldn't solve in more than 15 minutes.

insanemal · 2009-08-18 14:07:03

My pc runs stable as.

Mind you... it wasn't so stable until I fixed up some random X crashes. But once they cleared up.. I'd say its rocks-ville.
About a weeks worth of use around 12-16Hrs a day (all day at work then until stupid-O'Clock at night). Not one issue.
So I dunno, I've found Arch to be the "stable, rolling release" distro. The dev's and what have you Don't go OK'ing packages that aren't tested.
Or are going to eat your .conf files.
Most of the updates tend to make things more stable. Dunno.. But I'm one happy camper

jacko · 2009-08-18 14:38:31

Stable as any system can get in the rolling release model. I have updated twice and found myself having to pick up the pieces. That's been in the 2 years I have ran arch. A lot of times stability comes with the software one uses. I am by in far a minimalist, more so then most. I have very few programs not installed by default. The most unstable experience I have ever had was trying to run KDE! The more user-friendly I get, the more trouble I run into.

I also think updating daily is rubish, I do bi-weekly or monthly updates with an enabled testing repo and very rarely if ever run into trouble. This is where out of date mirrors catch everyone. To each his own, your experience may differ.

Last edited by jacko (2009-08-18 14:38:48)

Allamgir · 2009-08-18 16:44:46

Wow, this is all helping so much! I'm definitely going to try out other things like slackware and freebsd when 8 hits stable, but idk if I could ever really leave Arch. Everything here is just so awesome!

I think one of the main problems I was having was using an out of date mirror. Finding one that stays up to date would probably solve software inconsistencies I've run into.

VoodooSteve · 2009-08-18 16:50:55

Why not dual boot freebsd 8 (once it comes out) and arch? I ran into the same issue a little while ago worrying about breakages, etc with arch and installed ubuntu alongside arch. This way, in the rare event that an update does break arch (it has only happened to me once so far I think), I can just reboot into ubuntu and finish my work and either fix the breakage once I have time or wait for an update from the devs. This way you get the best of both worlds.

Allamgir · 2009-08-18 16:54:19

VoodooSteve wrote:

Why not dual boot freebsd 8 (once it comes out) and arch? I ran into the same issue a little while ago worrying about breakages, etc with arch and installed ubuntu alongside arch. This way, in the rare event that an update does break arch (it has only happened to me once so far I think), I can just reboot into ubuntu and finish my work and either fix the breakage once I have time or wait for an update from the devs. This way you get the best of both worlds.

Well I still have Vista on this computer (I need to keep it on for various reasons), and I was thinking a triple boot might be a little complicated. I also don't know if I can have enough primary partitions (doesn't FreeBSD have to be installed on a primary partition?) to accommodate all of those Operating Systems.

What I could do is set up VirtualBox on my Vista install, and while that wouldn't be as real as having a native install, I could try out OSs like that. I don't think FreeBSD works with VirtualBox, though
How's VMware? Any other solutions?

esh · 2009-08-18 16:58:36

I have some FreeBSD installations working lovely under VMWare. I heartily recommend it. The OS and the virtualiser.

All my stable systems are basically going Debian these days. Yes, my Arch is stable, but that is because I do not update it really anymore.

fwojciec · 2009-08-18 18:08:15

app4des wrote:

Arch is extremely cutting edge most times, which makes it, stability-wise the *worst* linux distribution around (but the *best* in getting new software in repos). Debian unstable, fedora rawhide etc are not supposed to be normally used so they don't count. Arch is supposed to be used that way and you have no other option. If Arch Stable existed we could compare something.
If you are looking for "stability and rolling release" distro, the only option I think is Gentoo, but not many have that much time for maintaining.

Stability in Arch depends on the user and the configuration. Since the beginning of the year or so I've been too busy with work to really spend much time in front of the computer at home. So all this time Arch was running in a sort of "autopilot" mode, with maybe 5-10 minutes of system maintenance a week (most of which is used up for dealing with "pacnew" files). During that time I haven't had a single problem worth mentioning -- some vim weirdness for a while, a problem with tex-live when updating to the 2009 packages (which was really my fault in the end), for a while there was a slight problem with perl or ruby update (I don't remember exactly, but Allan broke it, I think). Most of these "problems," now that I think about it, were probably due to the fact that I'm still using the [testing] repo -- I just never really had the time or the inclination to go through the ordeal of downgrading.

I do consciously think about setting my system up in such a way so that it requires as little maintenance as possible and so it is as stable as possible. I avoid custom, exotic configurations whenever possible, I stick to "mainstream", well-supported programs (Gnome, etc.), I use hardware that's well supported in Linux, things like this -- all common sense. In my experience Arch is a completely trustworthy and reliable system, and I've absolutely no complaints about "stability". Maybe I'm lucky, but I don't think so.

Last edited by fwojciec (2009-08-18 18:14:56)

matty · 2009-08-18 21:23:54

Prior to installing Arch, I had used every release of Fedora except Core 1. Before that it was RH8 and 9. I had toyed with Ubuntu but nothing more. Fedora does the "bleeding edge" thing and it was quite a ride. Installing a new release of Fedora was always a nerve racking experience as one could never be sure what the latest innovations would end up breaking. Often it best to wait for a "Unity" re-spin which had many of the wrinkles ironed out than to install the newest version on the first day of release.

SELinux caused not inconsiderable angst back in Core 2 or 3. Pulse Audio (introduced in Fedora 8) broke many hearts. Note I'm not referring to Rawhide, I'm talking about the stable releases.

This is not a criticism, mind. Given that I used Fedora for so long, the good obviously outweighed the bad. I'm still very fond of it as a distro and I don't rule out returing in the future. The Fedora project (and the attached community) is very honest about development nature of the distro. People who want things "to just work" are encouraged to consider other options such as Linux Mint.

I must that thus far I've found Arch to be as stable as anything else I've used. Moreso really.

Matty

/edited to correct typo/

Last edited by matty (2009-08-18 21:24:35)

DaveCode · 2009-08-19 01:56:57

Arch defines rock-solid. Other distros claiming title are PR'ing you. FUD about edges and blood papers over 2-year-old known bugs in their "stable" rollouts. My suffering at their hands drew the real blood.

All that Arch needs is more frequent tarballs/liveCDs for installation, like every 2 months.

The BSDs are good if you're happy with their hardware drivers and kernels. They keep packages up to date.

Allamgir · 2009-08-19 02:01:03

DaveCode wrote:

Arch defines rock-solid. Other distros claiming title are PR'ing you. FUD about edges and blood papers over 2-year-old known bugs in their "stable" rollouts. My suffering at their hands drew the real blood.

Wow; that is poetic.

Trent · 2009-08-19 02:24:43

Arch really is surprisingly stable for a cutting-edge, rolling-release distro. By far the most stable of the rolling-release distros (then again, there aren't too many of them). There are occasional problems, usually (so it seems to me) caused by upgrading to a new version of a package (Xorg 1.6.0, for example, or bash 4.0). But you can avoid most of those by watching the appropriate pages for potential issues and waiting for bugfix releases when necessary.

A really stable system would tend to have thoroughly tested and well-supported apps that are unlikely to break anyway. All the things that have broken for me (that I can remember) have been apps I installed from AUR, such as uzbl and svg2png. The speed at which packages move from upstream to Arch repos is really phenomenal when you think about it, which I think is why Arch is much more stable than other "cutting edge" distros.

Plus, I mean, the Arch community is just... awesome.

insanemal · 2009-08-19 03:21:55

Yeah,
One thing to note tho.. is regardless of your "linux experence"
When starting with arch, Start with the beginner guide. Arch has its own little personality.

Also.. Just because the distro is "rolling release" who said you had to update every time a new update comes out.

Personally I try to only run updates when Xorg/Intel vid drives/Something important gets updated.

Just because you can, doesn't mean you have to. Remember that.

Allamgir · 2009-08-19 20:49:20

Well just to give everyone an update I'm installing slackware as we speak. It feels so much harder than Arch because there's no Beginners Guide as good as ours (that I've found) that holds your hand so much. Where's some good documentation for slackware (besides the slackbook, which so far seems a bit vague especially on the install part)? Anything else I should know about slackware that might help?

After reading about slackware it seems to be just what I was looking for in FreeBSD, but with Linux! Well-designed, cohesive base (1 benevolent dictator/developer, which is awesome), and a good balance of conservatism to ensure great stability while not falling too far behind with updates. I also really like how slackware has always stuck to its core principles all these years. The developers don't chase after trends; they stick with what works (woot!).

I might even come back to Arch, but I really want to give slackware a fair chance on my laptop. I hope configuration is easy like Arch, and the config files are well organized so its easy to figure out. Must...find...documentation!

Chrysalis · 2009-08-19 21:35:27

Sometimes i wish slackware would perish and merge with arch to make a stable branch instead of being such a stubborn step-child.

Allamgir · 2009-08-19 21:36:25

Chrysalis wrote:

Sometimes i wish slackware would perish and merge with arch to make a stable branch instead of being such a stubborn step-child.

lol

Misfit138 · 2009-08-19 21:47:58

Allamgir wrote:

... Must...find...documentation!

That's the trick. Documentation for Slack is a bit vague as you have discovered.

Slackware is mighty, but it relies on your UNIX competence quite a bit. The more knowledgeable you are, the more you will love Slack.

Allamgir · 2009-08-19 21:57:25

Darn. I would think the documentation for slackware would be epic since it's so old and mature. Well, back to good ol' google & man!

Chrysalis · 2009-08-19 22:07:28

Or hate it! Because while its mighty - in this day and age its also unpractical. Thats why i suggested they merge with arch and not just perish.

Allamgir · 2009-08-19 22:08:30

Chrysalis wrote:

Or hate it! Because while its mighty - in this day and age its also unpractical. Thats why i suggested they merge with arch and not just perish.

What makes it impractical? It just seems like a DIY distribution to me. Isn't that what Arch is?

Chrysalis · 2009-08-19 22:20:05

Depends on your definition of DIY. Arch is a DIY because its gives you the tools to do whatever you want with it. Slackware is a collection of apps on 3 CDs for you to install with a couple scripts.

Last edited by Chrysalis (2009-08-19 22:21:36)

Allamgir · 2009-08-19 22:25:43

Oh I see. I was thinking about the configuration. Is slackware really that bad? I knew the configuration wouldn't be as easy or streamlined as Arch (/etc/rc.conf FTW!), but I thought an Arch user would be able to pick up slackware and feel ok after a little reading and thought. The major tradeoff is software selection / newness for stability, right?

I'm checking out slackware as a serious alternative to Arch since I was looking for a little more stability. Just about everything else is perfect in Arch, and I was aware that I would have to get used to the "slackware way", but is slackware more of a distro for those who used it in the 90s and are now going on a trip to memory lane? Is there no or little reason for new users to start using it? Of course, I'm still trying to check it out, but your opinions would definitely help.

Chrysalis · 2009-08-19 22:58:45

Configuration is same as arch except init and no rc.conf.

Its a good Distro, you should atleast try it. My problem with them is that Patrick is unwilling to improve on it. All they have done since it was first released is that they combined adding and removing pkgs into one script and thats pretty much all that script does and they call it a feature, also aside from whats on the CDs theres nothing else in the repos, and tweaking pkg selections is unpractical aside from Xorg or no Xorg... One arch dev probably puts more effort into arch then all of them combined into slackware.

Allamgir · 2009-08-19 23:07:05

Chrysalis wrote:

Configuration is same as arch except init and no rc.conf.
Its a good Distro, you should atleast try it. My problem with them is that Patrick is unwilling to improve on it. All they have done since it was first released is that they combined adding and removing pkgs into one script and thats pretty much all that script does and they call it a feature, also aside from whats on the CDs theres nothing else in the repos, and tweaking pkg selections is unpractical aside from Xorg or no Xorg... One arch dev probably puts more effort into arch then all of them combined into slackware.

Those are some pretty bold statements, especially the last one. The CDs seem to have a whole bunch of software, hence there being 6 of them.

Honestly, if I can get a configuration with all the basics I like (tiling wm I like, dzen2 or similar good status bar with conky pipe, mutt, firefox, zsh, latex, and some form of automounting of external volumes and a nice file manager), then I really don't care about all the other software I could possibly have. My priority after getting those basics down is stability, so I can be sure my configuration doesn't b0rk so easily.

Hopefully slackware can fulfill those basic needs.

I'm also very happy I started out with Arch. Arch taught me more about Linux than I ever thought I would set aside the time to learn. Supplementing that knowledge with another Intermediate to Advanced distro only enriches my overall experience with Linux. Good thing I didn't just stick with ubuntu

Arch Linux

#26 2009-08-18 12:32:23

Re: [SOLVED] Does anyone really have a "rock stable" Arch?

#27 2009-08-18 13:37:27

Re: [SOLVED] Does anyone really have a "rock stable" Arch?

#28 2009-08-18 14:07:03

Re: [SOLVED] Does anyone really have a "rock stable" Arch?

#29 2009-08-18 14:38:31

Re: [SOLVED] Does anyone really have a "rock stable" Arch?

#30 2009-08-18 16:44:46

Re: [SOLVED] Does anyone really have a "rock stable" Arch?

#31 2009-08-18 16:50:55

Re: [SOLVED] Does anyone really have a "rock stable" Arch?

#32 2009-08-18 16:54:19

Re: [SOLVED] Does anyone really have a "rock stable" Arch?

#33 2009-08-18 16:58:36

Re: [SOLVED] Does anyone really have a "rock stable" Arch?

#34 2009-08-18 18:08:15

Re: [SOLVED] Does anyone really have a "rock stable" Arch?

#35 2009-08-18 21:23:54

Re: [SOLVED] Does anyone really have a "rock stable" Arch?

#36 2009-08-19 01:56:57

Re: [SOLVED] Does anyone really have a "rock stable" Arch?

#37 2009-08-19 02:01:03

Re: [SOLVED] Does anyone really have a "rock stable" Arch?

#38 2009-08-19 02:24:43

Re: [SOLVED] Does anyone really have a "rock stable" Arch?

#39 2009-08-19 03:21:55

Re: [SOLVED] Does anyone really have a "rock stable" Arch?

#40 2009-08-19 20:49:20

Re: [SOLVED] Does anyone really have a "rock stable" Arch?

#41 2009-08-19 21:35:27

Re: [SOLVED] Does anyone really have a "rock stable" Arch?

#42 2009-08-19 21:36:25

Re: [SOLVED] Does anyone really have a "rock stable" Arch?

#43 2009-08-19 21:47:58

Re: [SOLVED] Does anyone really have a "rock stable" Arch?

#44 2009-08-19 21:57:25

Re: [SOLVED] Does anyone really have a "rock stable" Arch?

#45 2009-08-19 22:07:28

Re: [SOLVED] Does anyone really have a "rock stable" Arch?

#46 2009-08-19 22:08:30

Re: [SOLVED] Does anyone really have a "rock stable" Arch?

#47 2009-08-19 22:20:05

Re: [SOLVED] Does anyone really have a "rock stable" Arch?

#48 2009-08-19 22:25:43

Re: [SOLVED] Does anyone really have a "rock stable" Arch?

#49 2009-08-19 22:58:45

Re: [SOLVED] Does anyone really have a "rock stable" Arch?

#50 2009-08-19 23:07:05

Re: [SOLVED] Does anyone really have a "rock stable" Arch?

Board footer