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

Allamgir · 2009-08-17 15:58:47

Please see the Rock Stable Arch Linux HOWTO wiki page and contribute. The short answer to this thread for those who want to know if Arch can be really stable is yes.

Lately I've been looking into FreeBSD, but I haven't installed it because some of my important hardware (wireless card, etc.) are not supported until 8.0 and I would prefer to wait until the official release rather than run betas & RCs. In almost all of the comparisons between FreeBSD and Linux that I read, there are references to FreeBSD being far more stable than Linux because of the base system and how thought is put into how the programs at the base work together and the FreeBSD team makes sure everything is working correctly before deployment of a release. From what I've read, FreeBSD is designed with thought and effort put into how the base system should function to ensure stability and correctness, whereas Linux is grown as haphazard development and hacking is dropped onto the kernel piece by piece, with everything being an add on.

That doesn't sound very fair to Linux, for if that were 100% true, Linux wouldn't even work! The Arch Wiki elucidates that the people behind the Arch project put plenty of effort towards code-correctness, elegance, and cutting the BS out of the system, right?

So after reading up on FreeBSD and having some time to still enjoy Linux until FBSD 8.0 hits STABLE, I started to think that maybe Linux is still right for me, the best for me. After all, Arch takes everything the entire Linux community has to offer and allows us to put it together with pacman and the awesome AUR. The only problem is, as soon as I fired up my old reliable Arch install and did a pacman -Syu, I found that my nvidia driver was broken for this release and I would probably have to downgrade. I know it's probably an easy fix, but I really don't like when this kind of stuff happens. I get that feeling of finally finishing my configuration just the way I like it, finally conquering the beast that is Arch, and then a simple update causes a showstopper breakage.

Is this really possible to avoid? Is it because I'm using proprietary software that can't really be controlled and that going (almost) all open-source would help prevent this? How often do these breakages happen to you guys? Do you consider it a pain to fix or do you just shrug it off as part of the process of using Arch?

I used to not mind so much but that was when I was still configuring and it just felt like one extra step. Now I'd like to have that rock of a system I know (hope) Linux can be. I even considered switching to slackware or another distro, but I love Arch so much! It's just so perfect! But how can I avoid these kinds of breakages? I'd really rather not just accept them as a part of using Linux because that makes me feel like I'm using Windows and accepting the fact that my computer crawls and crashes every other day.

I know the easy post for you guys would be to tell me "just try FreeBSD/Slackware/other OS and leave me alone", but I really want to stay with Arch. I love the community, the documentation, the software, the everything! I feel it really is "Linux done right". But what about these update breakages?

One more question (well, two more, but related): Is it true that not updating for a long time and then doing a pacman -Syu can break your system? Do I have to update every day to keep Arch happy and stable?

Thanks everyone. Hopefully you guys can shed some light on this for me.

Last edited by Allamgir (2009-08-22 12:14:17)

andre.ramaciotti · 2009-08-17 16:16:01

I won't talk about stability for I've never used FreeBSD to compare. Just keep in mind that Arch is, in some aspects, BSD-like: the repositories are divided into core, extra and community, and special attention is paid to the packages in core. I'd say I've never had problems with Arch as a system, though some app may crash every once in a while (apps such as pidgin, flash, listen...). They don't compromise the stability of the system as whole, though.

Allamgir wrote:

One more question (well, two more, but related): Is it true that not updating for a long time and then doing a pacman -Syu can break your system? Do I have to update every day to keep Arch happy and stable?

I'd say this is half true. Sometimes, there are changes that need the user to do something. This kind of changes are announced in the main page of Arch Linux, in the mailing list, there's a RSS feed... The problem is that if you don't update in, say, two years, you have to read all this warnings and most people don't do it. The result, a broken system.

Update every day isn't necessary, though. You can update only during weekends, or maybe once in a month. Most users get addicted to 'pacman -Syu', though.

perbh · 2009-08-17 16:31:32

*lol* so _that's_ what it is - addiction!!
I always wondered why it is I just _must_ run 'pacman -Syu' every morning ... ;-)

Allamgir · 2009-08-17 16:32:29

That's at least somewhat reassuring. What is the best page (url please) to follow/subscribe to to get information on updates? I'd rather not have to scour the forums and a bunch of other news sites. I also don't like mailing lists so much. It would be much better if there was only one site or a couple I could subscribe to in Google Reader/RSS.

Allamgir · 2009-08-17 16:44:42

http://www.archlinux.org/news/ seems to have some stuff, but it looks a little short on content. Only a few posts for this month and nothing about nvidia. Is that all that's needed?

linkmaster03 · 2009-08-17 17:45:20

I have never had anything break on an update except my mouse speed which was easily fixed by a HAL rule. I guess I'm lucky that my hardware is well-supported. I also check for updates at least once a day, so that may contribute to my system's stability.

Nepherte · 2009-08-17 17:50:51

If there is an important change or intervention is required by the user, it is posted on the link your provided. That's pretty much all you need. The thing with nvidia is that you can hardly test the package for every graphics card and, obviously, it may be an upstream problem. The arch repositories mainly contain packages marked stable by upstream. However the software may be very recent and is therefore not tested for a long time as for example in debian.

AdrenalineJunky · 2009-08-17 17:53:51

i wouldn't call it rock stable - it falls a bit short of even a few other linux distro's i've used (debian stable, mepis, etc) i've never used bsd's other then for 10 minutes in a VM.

however, i do consider it generally stable - and more then stable enough to be worth the tradeoff of getting newer features.

Crows · 2009-08-17 17:57:18

The news is the only real place for info like this - as any problems like the mentioned nvidia issues only effect certain users and mostly can't be solved by the Arch devs, but by the devs of that particular package.

I think the best two pieces of advice for minimum system-breakage are:

1 - Check news to see if something will require you to intervene.

2 - Check to make sure you update when you should. Quite a few problems on the forums are the result of slightly out-of-date mirrors. In this case apps that are updated in groups (Using, I don't know, that stuff about udev conflicting with initscripts as an example) may cause you some trouble.

Mostly, though, Arch is an incredibly stable distro - and that's ignoring the fact that it's more or less bleeding edge.

Peasantoid · 2009-08-17 18:03:49

If you want to be absolutely sure that your install will be stable, get it to a point where it is and then never upgrade anything other than the trivial packages.

Although this rather defeats the point of rolling-release/cutting-edgeness.

Last edited by Peasantoid (2009-08-17 18:04:37)

lestoil · 2009-08-17 18:04:15

I have tried FreeBSD(a few yrs back). DesktopBSD may be easier install now. It comes with live-dvd version. The toughest part for me with FBSD was getting the dsl-internet setup.
And I have used Slackware since version8. I have learned a lot about linux with it. Talk about rock solid! once it is setup.
Now I use Arch also and it has been stable for my basic needs of email,playing cds/videos and getting on internet. But it's my "living on the edge'' linux--rolling release.
I use CentOS as a stable-doesn't change much-install. And I use Mandrake x5yrs and Ubuntu9.04. A spare partition has included Suse10-11.1, Sidux(too unstable), and Sabayon4.1(update messed up install) and Libranet until it went out of business. I keep Win200pro for some Logos Bible Study programs. Cheers!

Allamgir · 2009-08-17 18:14:53

After reading all of this I'm definitely going to stay with Arch. Slackware is solid but not as up to date, and idk if I want to invest the time in FreeBSD anymore. I guess I'll just use the nv driver (I don't need transparency) and consult the news page often. Thanks for your posts everyone!

cardinals_fan · 2009-08-17 22:46:43

I got your message, so here's a reply:

I've walked the line between bleeding edge features and rock-solid stability for several years now. I finally made a decision a few months ago and came down on the side of stability. There really isn't a right answer to this question - it comes down to personal preference.

There is a lot to be said for a bleeding-edge rolling-release distro such as Arch. I remember the time I ran my first pacman -Syu and felt awed at the fact that I was one of the first users to get the latest version of *. However, I've grown more pragmatic since then. Sure, it's fun to get the latest and "greatest"; but is it really worth it? Are you really much more productive with the new version than you were with the old? In my case, the answer was usually no. I just don't care if my stuff is at the latest version (provided that the latest security updates are installled, that is!)

So, I started using Scientific Linux (a RHEL clone from CERN, Fermilab, and some other research institutes). It has a fairly lightweight live CD available and works beautifully for me. My kernel version is 2.6.18 (with some newer drivers). Do I care? Not really. It works and it does what I tell it to do. There are some exceptions. While I mostly browse with elinks, sometimes I need to use Firefox for Flash or whatnot. And I like to have that in the latest version. So, I just download the latest binary and run it from my home directory. Problem solved.

You don't have to go as far as I did. There are some other choices:

Slackware. I know you decided that Slack wasn't for you, but it's a remarkable system and it can be pretty modern if you choose to keep it up-to-date. Even if you end up not liking it, I feel that Slackware's package management (or lack thereof) is something every user should experience. It gives you a new outlook on the KISS philosophy.

SliTaz. I include SliTaz because it is the perfect system to customize completely. If you want it up to date, it will be. New versions not in the repos? Build them; it's easy. SliTaz is what you make of it, provided that you are willing to put in the time.

Arch. You can stay with Arch (sounds like that's where you're at right now). If you want the latest software just for the sake of it, or use bloated amalgamations that are hard to update yourself (*cough* desktop environments *cough*), Arch is the best rolling-release system I've used. The team is dedicated and this community is great.

Think it over and come to your own decision.

perbh · 2009-08-17 22:53:58

@cardinals_fan:
I think that is the best piece of advice I have (almost) ever seen! Kudos!!
(and quite apart from that - it's my own sentiment (and behaviour) almost to a tee!!)

Allamgir · 2009-08-17 22:57:01

Thanks for the post. I really love Arch Linux but idk if I like the idea of being so bleeding edge anymore. I keep hearing about the mightiness of slackware and decided to read up on it (I haven't tried it out yet), but the idea of manual dependency resolution is confusing me because of all of the conflicting viewpoints regarding package management. I guess I'll just have to try it out to see how much I like it. FreeBSD is increasingly interesting, but I have to wait for version 8.0 for some of my hardware to be supported. It also requires me to do more relearning than sticking with Linux, but honestly I don't mind that as long as it works.

I also like the geek cred of using slackware lol.

lilsirecho · 2009-08-17 23:15:55

Faunos is archlinux with a live usb boot to 600 packages of pacman archlinux.

It even runs in ram.

It is called "stable" and that is what it is. Never changes!!!!!

cardinals_fan · 2009-08-17 23:34:46

@perbh: Thanks!

Thanks for the post. I really love Arch Linux but idk if I like the idea of being so bleeding edge anymore. I keep hearing about the mightiness of slackware and decided to read up on it (I haven't tried it out yet), but the idea of manual dependency resolution is confusing me because of all of the conflicting viewpoints regarding package management. I guess I'll just have to try it out to see how much I like it. FreeBSD is increasingly interesting, but I have to wait for version 8.0 for some of my hardware to be supported. It also requires me to do more relearning than sticking with Linux, but honestly I don't mind that as long as it works.
I also like the geek cred of using slackware lol.

Manual dependency resolution is an experience. I actually quite like it, but I'm a minimalist. It will make you think about your software choices, which can be a very beneficial experience. Do some homework and think it over.

@lilsirecho: I know that was a joking post, but the idea of just using Arch (in one form or another) and not updating is a very dangerous one. Whatever distro you use, it is important to keep up with the latest security updates.

Allamgir · 2009-08-17 23:59:29

Alright. Slackware seems really tempting now because I am sort of a minimalist, preferring XMonad over any DE, lightweight OSs and software, etc., although I don't think I'm as hardcore as you are. But is slackware really something I can install and use daily on a laptop for everyday use, or is it more of an "experience" and "experiment" than an actual usage distro (assuming I like it)? I guess I could ask the same about Arch Linux, too. Also, now I know this question has been beaten to death and then some, but I have never really found a good answer to this. I am using 64-bit Arch Linux. Since 64-bit slackware isn't really supported or as "complete" as 32-bit, am I really losing much by using 32 slackware instead of 64 arch? I only have 2GB of RAM, so that's not affected, but I have an intel core 2 duo processor.

I also noticed slackware has a book just like FreeBSD, which I really like. I haven't really heard anyone praising the slackware documentation, so I'll just have to hope it's good.

How is development on slackware going? Arch seems to be going full speed and working well, but I don't know about slack. Hopefully it's not decreasing year over year (ideally I would like it to be growing and becoming exponentially more robust over time). Usually I look to sites like ohloh.net because it tells you exactly if development of a project is increasing or decreasing, but ohloh has nothing on slackware, just a high rating.

Thanks for all of your help. Your posts have been highly beneficial in my quest to find the right OS for me.

cardinals_fan · 2009-08-18 00:47:19

But is slackware really something I can install and use daily on a laptop for everyday use, or is it more of an "experience" and "experiment" than an actual usage distro (assuming I like it)?

That depends on you. I used it for several months straight last year. While I strongly recommend giving the standard packaging system a shot, there are some third-party tools such as slapt-get and slackpkg that can provide more traditional package management. The biggest irritation for me was the slightly unconventional (read: non-RHEL) base structure that caused me grief with some things (like the daemon for my printer drivers).

How is development on slackware going?

Much as it has in the past. Pat Volkerding is still absolute dictator, but there are a number of other people pretty deeply involved with the project. They brought out a 64-bit edition and recently decided to include KDE4 (a decision I disagreed with, but to each their own).

I also noticed slackware has a book just like FreeBSD, which I really like. I haven't really heard anyone praising the slackware documentation, so I'll just have to hope it's good.

It's very good. FreeBSD and NetBSD both have better, but it should be plenty to get you going. I think you'd be happier with vanilla, minimalist Slack, but there are some projects such as Absolute that preconfigure things. Not that it really needs it.

Since 64-bit slackware isn't really supported or as "complete" as 32-bit, am I really losing much by using 32 slackware instead of 64 arch?

In my opinion, no. The only difference I found with 64-bit systems was increased RAM use (anecdote - take with large chunk of salt).

I'm off for a run. I'll check back tomorrow to see what you decide

Last edited by cardinals_fan (2009-08-18 00:51:57)

pizmooz · 2009-08-18 01:05:07

I use arch to run a little home NAS server. It runs on an intel atom board, two laptop hds in a software raid1 for the data partition. It has the non-data/bootable part of the system on a 2GB usb flash drive, with some parts of the fs mounted as tmpfs. I keep it rock solid stable by making image level backups of the flash drive after I have everything tweaked and stable. I don't really update all that often since it is essentially an appliance(just NAS/SAMBA). However, sometimes after an update things will break , but if I ever get to an unrecoverable state, I just blast back my last image with dd to the flash drive. For me this has worked very well.

pizmooz · 2009-08-18 01:06:43

Does anyone really have a "rock stable" Arch

so to answer the question...YES

lilsirecho · 2009-08-18 01:28:02

Security is a given with a usb Live flash system. Just reboot!!!

tomd123 · 2009-08-18 01:28:39

pizmooz wrote:

Does anyone really have a "rock stable" Arch
so to answer the question...YES

I had a stable arch workstation, greatest uptime was about 100 days It could have gone longer, but it was a pIII and so I switched to a newer computer.

Allamgir · 2009-08-18 01:42:10

tomd123 wrote:

pizmooz wrote:
Does anyone really have a "rock stable" Arch
so to answer the question...YES
I had a stable arch workstation, greatest uptime was about 100 days It could have gone longer, but it was a pIII and so I switched to a newer computer.

But how often did you update? Usually breakages come with updating the system, and honestly I'm getting a little tired of having to deal with fixing up my system after almost every package upgrade. The thing is I haven't even had a long lasting arch install because I have been configuring and reinstalling to clean up the mess I created so many times. Now I'm starting to get my configuration just the way I like it and I was hoping Arch isn't one of those distros I'm constantly fixing up. Improving and tweaking is one thing, fixing breakages and downgrading is another. I don't run a DE or a bunch of complex packages, just xmonad, firefox, texlive, and some lightweight mostly cli apps. If I finally get an arch install with just the apps I want and keep updating it, is there a good chance I won't have any major breakages or showstoppers? Of course there are no guarantees, so I am asking for others' experiences. I might not have to switch distros, although it would be a good learning experience just like switching to Arch was.

10wattmindtrip · 2009-08-18 06:10:25

I know I'm a bit late on this thread but I thought I'd give my 2 cents.

Arch Linux is actually quite an amazing distro if you want reasonable stability and if you want the latest, greatest updates without having to worry about 'reinstalling' your OS every 6 or so months. Arch has something that few others have (and it's comparable to FreeBSD), the community. If you have a problem then the wiki will, most of the time, help you. If the wiki can't do it then the forums are a sure thing. The people on this forum are amazing with giving direct responses and really, actually helping you out.

I see a lot of FreeBSD in Arch Linux, to be honest. However, if what you really want is consistant stability, then FreeBSD or OpenBSD are your better options, I think. I am both, an Arch Linux user and FreeBSD user. I have used Arch Linux as my main desktop for quite a while now and have used FreeBSD since the 2.x.x days mainly for server stuff. FreeBSD is amazing for server stuff. The x86_64 version is simply awesome. But with all of this awesomeness comes a price. As far as I can tell, there is no native flash support on FreeBSD. Though, the up side is, FreeBSD can emulate Linux very, very well. Firefox for linux can be installed with flash. It works quite nice. The 64bit system does not support (as of right now) NVidia drivers while the 32bit version does. I read somewhere that nvidia are working on a 64bit driver for FreeBSD and it's coming out soon (freebsd 8, maybe?). Whether that is true, I have absolutely no idea, but it would be welcome.

While FreeBSD is a very nice system for Desktop use, it also isn't for new users in the *nix world. It has some short comings when it comes to drivers for the desktop on 64bit or even, in some cases, 32bit.
As a Server, FreeBSD is by far my favourite system.

All in all, though:
If you know Arch Linux reasonably well, you can adopt much of that information to FreeBSD.

EDIT:
I forgot to mention, for a very nice desktop system that is built on FreeBSD, you might want to check out PC-BSD. It uses KDE as the desktop. PBI's are used for 1 click installations of programs but you can still use the ports system if you want.
Cheers.

Last edited by 10wattmindtrip (2009-08-18 06:14:13)

Arch Linux

#1 2009-08-17 15:58:47

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

#2 2009-08-17 16:16:01

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

#3 2009-08-17 16:31:32

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

#4 2009-08-17 16:32:29

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

#5 2009-08-17 16:44:42

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

#6 2009-08-17 17:45:20

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

#7 2009-08-17 17:50:51

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

#8 2009-08-17 17:53:51

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

#9 2009-08-17 17:57:18

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

#10 2009-08-17 18:03:49

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

#11 2009-08-17 18:04:15

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

#12 2009-08-17 18:14:53

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

#13 2009-08-17 22:46:43

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

#14 2009-08-17 22:53:58

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

#15 2009-08-17 22:57:01

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

#16 2009-08-17 23:15:55

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

#17 2009-08-17 23:34:46

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

#18 2009-08-17 23:59:29

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

#19 2009-08-18 00:47:19

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

#20 2009-08-18 01:05:07

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

#21 2009-08-18 01:06:43

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

#22 2009-08-18 01:28:02

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

#23 2009-08-18 01:28:39

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

#24 2009-08-18 01:42:10

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

#25 2009-08-18 06:10:25

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

Board footer