[HN Gopher] Using the same Arch Linux installation for a decade ___________________________________________________________________ Using the same Arch Linux installation for a decade Author : meribold Score : 376 points Date : 2022-08-16 15:20 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (meribold.org) (TXT) w3m dump (meribold.org) | numlock86 wrote: | I am running Arch on my server (VPS) for over a decade and | therefore haven't even noticed the X and audio issues. The only | time something broke was when the Ethernet interface suddenly was | named eth0 instead of the vendor specific (?) enXsX or whatever | it was. And I had configured systemd-networkd to use the absolute | and exact names and not some wildcard like e*. Error was located | fixed within five minutes. | unixsheikh wrote: | I don't get what the fuss is about. | | I run several Arch boxes, a couple I believe is on 15+ years. One | such installation has even been mirrored from one disk to | multiple other disks and put into other machines, just because it | was already set up as needed. Only once did a package I ran | require manual intervention during upgrade, but as always, that | was clearly described on the Arch website. | | This also goes for Debian, FreeBSD and OpenBSD. | vkoskiv wrote: | I have a similar experience. I have a 2005 Fujitsu LifeBook S2110 | I keep for sentimental purposes. I installed Arch on it in ~2015, | and I've been upgrading it ever since. I've had 2-3 breakages | over the years, but every time I've just googled the issue and | found an obvious solution to resolve the issue. I've been so | happy with the Arch rolling release that I now use it on my main | daily driver desktop. I switched over full time from macOS last | year. | kache_ wrote: | I love arch linux. It just works. Even with video games. Steam | deck is based on it. | | Linux really did win desktops. Running on arch for 3 years now. | qbasic_forever wrote: | Arch wiki is a real treasure too. I don't even run arch but use | their wiki info all the time. | nfhshy68 wrote: | I switched off Ubuntu to arch because I got sick of | inconsistencies between Ubuntus hacks and developer defaults | talked about in archwiki. | kache_ wrote: | Precisely. The best part about it (linux distros) is that you | can actually fix your issues, while with windows/apple you | have to suffer until you get a bug fix, since you don't | control the software that runs on your computer | sophacles wrote: | Arch wiki is what made me switch to arch - I was tired of | translating from arch-wiki -> whatever debian flavor I was | using. | throwaway1777 wrote: | Having to debug X or audio breaking several times even over 10 | years is a non-starter. Had these issues 0 times over 10 years on | mac, albeit on several machines, but I think it's extremely rare | for someone to reinstall Mac OS ever. Only time I did it was when | I tried to setup a hackintosh and that really broke some things. | Bolkan wrote: | For me, having to setup X or audio is a bigger deal breaker. | Unless it's on nixos. It provides a nix config file that works | like a translator between you and all the bazillion different | system configuration files. | zdragnar wrote: | I get that some people don't like tinkering. They want | something that will always Just Work. Some of my friends who | were long time linux uses switched to macs and stayed there. | | MacOS wasn't that for me- brew was the cause of no shortage of | pain, but even that could have been lived with. It's also not | exactly stable- one company I worked for (about 7 years total) | had a blanket request that people not update OSX to new | versions for a few weeks or months while it was tested to make | sure that the bugs had been ironed out- anyone who upgraded | before then was on their own if they ran into issues. | | Even that, I could (and did, when I had to) tolerate. | | I _hate_ the UI. It doesn 't jive with how I want to operate. | Settings exist for some things, but not others. It's just not | my cup of tea, and I'm happier tinkering a bit to get exactly | what I want. | axby wrote: | I recently got a macbook for work and I can't believe how | many minor things just can't be changed. I don't think you | can change the date format in the top right. It seems like | you can't get rid of that damn dock entirely without killing | important processes and breaking things. (I'm able to hide it | and put it in the left, so it's mostly out of the way, but it | seems so anti-user to force this interface on everyone). | | I haven't yet looked for a "how to effectively use mac | keyboard shortcuts" comprehensive guide, instead I've looked | for things as I need them. I can see the benefits for | introducing "cmd" where "Ctrl" is usually used on other | operating systems. | | But I'm very disappointed by cmd tab and cmd backtick. Often | I want to press a single keyboard shortcut to switch between | three windows or so: usually a few browser windows, a | terminal, and an IDE. cmd backtick switches between windows | of the same program, cmd tab switches between programs. | | Can any more experienced mac user tell me the way to do this | properly? How to switch between a few separate windows, like | alt tab, without having to think about what program they are? | zdragnar wrote: | I used https://www.hammerspoon.org/ to write custom | keyboard shortcuts for switching between specific | applications. I don't have it anymore, but it didn't take | too much perusing the docs to find a way to bind a keyboard | command to look for a specific window, focus it if it was | found, or open the application if it wasn't. SO much better | than cmd+tab/backtick or mission control. | nullwarp wrote: | What i've discovered is you really need to buy and/or | install a bunch of 3rd party applications to get that | horrible UI to work in any usable fashion. | axby wrote: | I've seen a lot of people recommend this approach when | searching for solutions online. I was trying to embrace | the apple way, rather than forcing it to match what I'm | used to. Your comment might be the push I need to just | give up and force it to match what I'm used to. | | But if this is the case, why do so many developers buy | and enjoy macbooks? It seems ridiculous that you have to | pay such a premium for a nice laptop, and then find | random 3rd party applications to make it work the way you | want. | | If I wanted to endlessly tinker then I'd be happy with | Linux. I was under the impression that macbooks would | "just work". I've also been disappointed by poor UX in | some cases, like randomly showing "enter your password" | dialogs. | alin23 wrote: | For the Command Tab issue, I created rcmd to fix it: | https://lowtechguys.com/rcmd | | It became really annoying to press tab 5 times just to get | to the app I need. | | If you're interested in technical writings, I recently | wrote about my journey to creating rcmd here: | https://alinpanaitiu.com/blog/window-switcher-app-store/ | | The dock stops being a problem once you set it to | automatically hide and find ways to use the mouse less. | Shortcat is another tool that helped improve my mouseless | workflow, and is kinda of like a vimium for the whole | system but with fuzzy search: https://shortcat.app | axby wrote: | Thanks, this looks great. I'll definitely read this | later. | | But why doesn't the base macbook install support more of | these features? I was led to believe (perhaps | incorrectly) that I wouldn't have to tinker with a mac as | much as I have with Linux. (I suppose that fine tuning | keyboard shortcuts is very different from trying to | desperately fix a video or wireless driver) | | I assumed that apple optimized for a good user | experience. Are "power users" (or even people that just | want alt tab) not included in apple's UX goals? | alin23 wrote: | Indeed, power users are not really what Apple optimizes | for. They try to dumb everything down, and it helps them | in their ultimate goal: get more market share. | | You've actually stumbled upon the least configurable | components of macOS: the Window Manager, and the Desktop | Environment. | | On Linux you can choose your own, and you have so many | different paradigms. I still miss i3 wm.. | | On macOS you don't have this choice, and you have to use | apps to get to the workflow you need. | | I was a Windows power user for a few years, and now I use | both Linux and macOS daily since 6 years ago. In the end, | I feel more productive on macOS nowadays, mostly because | there are many quality apps to get anything I want done, | I don't have to worry that basic OS function will stop | working when I update some dependency, and there are some | macOS-native features that really improved my workflow. | | For example I didn't know how useful Live Text would be | until the first time I noticed that Command-F search in | Safari also searches text in images, or when I double | clicked on a phone number and I could just call it with | my iPhone (which was in another room) but keep talking | from the MacBook. | | I can't even imagine how I would do that on Linux (surely | doable, but nothing beats "already done and usable"), and | it's just one of many features like that. | | I will end with some more software recommendations: yabai | for window management | (https://github.com/koekeishiya/yabai) and skhd for | hotkeys (https://github.com/koekeishiya/skhd) | | They are more Linux-like, using config files, free and | easy to forget they aren't native. | throwaway1777 wrote: | Your points are all valid, but I will point out homebrew not | working isn't really an apple issue. Also this isn't quite | same level as X or drivers not working. It seems intuitive | that less configurability in is in fact a reason why macOS is | more stable | cevn wrote: | I tried to use Centos long term, that was a disaster. Ubuntu and | Fedora both broke a few times but I was able to recover them. | However, Manjaro / Arch feels the most stable in my experience. | yjftsjthsd-h wrote: | > I tried to use Centos long term, that was a disaster. | | What was a disaster about it? I would expect pain crossing | major versions, but you could plausibly have installed CentOS | on a machine and just stayed there for 5-10 years with nothing | more than the odd `yum update && reboot` and I would have | thought it would be fine. | jandrese wrote: | Usually the pain comes when you find you need to use a | feature in some software and the feature wasn't introduced | until after the version that Centos ships. This happens more | often than you might expect. Even fairly "modern" versions of | Centos come with some really old and crusty packages. | yjftsjthsd-h wrote: | Yeah, that's fair. I guess I was reading it as a complaint | that the _existing_ system had issues, but EL certainly has | a painful tendency to not keep up with new stuff (which is | rather the point, but that doesn 't make it not painful:]) | cevn wrote: | After a while I believe there were no more updates for Centos | 7. What is impressive about this story is that I was able to | drag it into the modern era with rocky linux 9 but it was a | ... rocky transition. My biggest pain point was when the | networking stack was broken and Yum refuses to do ANYTHING | without loading sources from the network. I couldn't get | around it without flash driving RPMs to the server.. | | The uptime of the machine was great on Centos, but it came to | a point I was afraid to reboot because of the package changes | that could apply. | | edit: I think some software I was using was EOL'd just for | Centos maybe also prompting the switch. | yjftsjthsd-h wrote: | CentOS 7 "active support" ended in 2020 (which I'm guessing | is what you mean?) but it's supposed to keep getting | security support until 2024 (thus hilariously outliving | both CentOS 8 and CentOS Stream 8) - | https://endoflife.date/centos | | Although certainly I can sympathize with the software | eventually getting very long in the tooth, and jumping EL 7 | to 9 could definitely be quite a change. | sam_lowry_ wrote: | So what, I likely had my Arch Linux for a decade as well. Just | copying it to the new SSD every time I had a new device. | | I even have 2 bootloader entries: for intel and for amd devices | so I do not need to reconfigure anything. ARM devices such as | PineBook or Olimex are a PITA, though. Never had patience with | them. | B-Con wrote: | I reinstalled Arch once since 2009, and it was to resolve a long- | standing bug that I could not fix for the life of me. FWIW, it | worked. (This was probably 6-ish years ago, I don't remember what | the bug was.) | seletskiy wrote: | As another Arch Linux user, I can attest that it is the rock- | solid foundation for your computer. | | I use double boot to host both Linux and Windows; when I need to | use Windows, I just put Linux into hibernation. This greatly | extends the amount of time it can go without being rebooted. | | Driver and X problems still cropped up occasionally, but things | seem much more reliable now than they did a while back. | | This is a also the distro I'm familiar with from my time working | on servers, where I've used it with ZFS with great success. | Jnr wrote: | When I don't need Windows for gaming, I just boot the physical | windows partition from Linux using Virtualbox. This way I don't | even have to hibernate and interrupt any work. | scarygliders wrote: | I have a libvirt VM running Windows with GPU passthrough to | the GTX1070 (the main GPU is the RTX 2070 Super) and use | looking-glass-client and scream to pass the audio to Linux, | which I use for gaming. No need to even multi boot, though I | do still have the Windows boot available if I need it, which | is rarely. | seletskiy wrote: | Yes, I do it too, but getting it to work is a bit tricky with | UEFI. | janci wrote: | Isn't windows "Installing new hardware" every time you boot? | And the license is still active? I was always affraid it will | break the system after few switches between virtual and bare- | metal boot. | WfAjWDYpDHDYCN5 wrote: | Nah, when Windows installs new hardware it doesn't | uninstall the old hardware. Good luck on the license front | though, since Microsoft has decided you can't move around | the item you purchased from them... | franga2000 wrote: | I've been running this setup since 2017 and while there | were occasional graphical and sound glitches, usually after | a Windows update, over all it works great. It did the | "installing new hardware" thing only after updates as well, | so I didn't run into it too often. | | It does like to deactivate itself after a few reboots, but | that's nothing a bit of mild piracy can't fix. I have at | least two spare windows licenses in a drawer so I don't | feel the least bit bad about it. | | I also have a big ugly powershell script that runs during | startup and does some things differently depending on where | it's running. Things like not launching all my background | stuff in the VM, remapping drive letters between physical | disks and VM folder shares... | | Another thing to look into is RemoteApp. I did some | experiments with it in a VM and the performance was way | better than "seamless mode" (which doesn't exist anymore | anyways), but getting it to work on non-Server editions is | a pain. | pjvsvsrtrxc wrote: | Seamless mode still exists in Virtualbox 6.1 which is the | latest version. | | (Windows _did_ just crash when I was testing it but, as | it also crashed twice before I got that far, I don 't | think it's related) | janci wrote: | Did Windows 10 start to crash in VBox for you too? I had | to move to libvirt/qemu as I was not able to resolve. | Downgrading nor upgrading VirtualBox did not help. | Removing last windows update helped a little, then it | started crashing again. | Jnr wrote: | Installing new hardware doesn't happen often and it shows | the unlicensed watermark when booted from Virtualbox, but | booting natively restores the activation status. | drbawb wrote: | I have a similar experience, though only now am I faced with the | existential crisis that "2013" is going to be "a decade ago" in a | few months. My Arch Linux install started life as a VMWare | Workstation image. It made it through two major init systems | (sysvinit -> systemd), different audio subsystems (alsa -> | pulseaudio -> pipewire), different WMs (gnome2 -> kde4 -> i3 -> | sway), three filesystems (ext3 -> ext4, ext4 -> brtfs -> ext4, | then ext4 -> zfs), several different versions of VMWare | Workstation (7 through 14 I believe), different storage | substrates, etc. It's also lived on three different uArchs (AMD | Bulldozer c. 2012, Intel Skylake c. 2016, and Ryzen c. 2020) but | VMWare abstracted most of that away, of course. | | Eventually I got fed up with Windows and decided to `zfs send` | the install to a real disk and booted it on bare metal. It has | been my daily driver since then for the last 2 years or so. (I | did drop into the Arch installer a last year to unfuck my | bootloader while trying to get rEFInd & ZFS Boot Menu to work, | but that was just building a new initramfs; I haven't run | "pacstrap" since I built the image c. 2013.) | | The flexibility this operating system has provided me with is | nothing short of amazing. I do have to say though: since | switching to Wayland + the in-kernel AMDGPU driver, I can't | remember the last time my system was rendered unbootable. | (Excepting the one time I tried to change my bootloader, but | that's user error.) In hindsight I feel like the vast majority of | Arch's reputation for breaking systems is overblown, and the | blame rests mostly on DKMS + NVidia's proprietary drivers. | alufers wrote: | May I ask: What prompted you to change the file systems? I | recently reluctantly switched over to btrfs and I see no | meaningful difference between ext4, so I am curious. | Animats wrote: | One of my systems, a public-facing server: | Server status at 2022-08-16 11:39:24 System status: | Database up for 1644.44 days. | zh3 wrote: | The software install on my daily driver dates from 1999 (though | the oldest file in /etc is dated 1994) and was originally an old | Red Hat release. It runs XFree86-4.x (last rebuilt 2004) which | works fine with nvidia-390.132 (no more than a few years old) on | a GTX780Ti and an i7-3770K (maybe a decade old itself now?). | Desktop is currently Xfce-4.something (was FVWM for many years); | applications only get upgraded as needed (autoconf and make FTW). | It's been triplehead pretty much forever (easier now only one | graphics card is needed, current running 3x27" Dell something or | others). | | I don't normally explain why it's so fast, just smile quietly | when people comment on how instant the response is. | waynesonfire wrote: | xfce is great | oedo wrote: | Yeah, this is a thing. | | To enjoy years of stability on Arch[0]: - | occasionally upgrade your system - before upgrading, glance | at https://archlinux.org/news/ to see if anything requires manual | intervention | | [0] I use Arch btw | capableweb wrote: | > - before upgrading, glance at https://archlinux.org/news/ to | see if anything requires manual intervention | | I simply have https://archlinux.org/ as my homepage when I open | my browser on the desktop computer. Shows the same news in a | slightly better format (personally), and also shows latest | package updates on the right side, in case some favorite | software of mine has been recently updated. | thekoma wrote: | I've been using informant | (https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/informant). | dmz73 wrote: | I tried using arch based distributions but the need for constant | manual babysitting has turned me off them. | | Packages randomly break and require hours of work to fix. Non- | rolling distribution will usually only break when there is major | upgrade which can be scheduled for when you have the time to deal | with it. | | Pacman only works in interactive mode so using it on a headless | means at least weekly session. Randomly that will use up an hour | or two when something breaks, and it will. Ubuntu based LTS | distribution will last a couple of years without needing manual | intervention after initial installation, and much longer if you | don't upgrade to next LTS until the EOL. | | Finally, if you need old software to build old version of | something, Arch based distribution is useless. On Ubuntu I can | download and install version 14.04 without much hassle (and even | older with a bit of work) and build that old Android or sdk for | device that is no longer supported but with Arch...don't waste | your time, its not happening. | Retr0id wrote: | > Pacman only works in interactive mode so using it on a | headless means at least weekly session. | | What do you mean by this? | loudmax wrote: | The Arch Linux install on my ThinkPad X230 is about twelve years | old now. For most of the time it was my primary laptop, until a | couple of years ago when I turned it into a sort of home server | with built-in KVM and battery backup. | | In contrast to my experience running Gentoo or Fedora, I never | experienced significant breakage when doing a system update. | Having said that, I've always run a fairly minimal desktop | environment and I've been conservative with wifi and audio | software. So maybe I wasn't pushing it very hard, but still full | credit to Arch for having a rock solid foundation. | orangepurple wrote: | I push my Arch installs hard. I install a large number of | applications. I even have Arch Linux running in a proot on my | Android phone. I have had occasional breakage every 6 to 12 | months. It is usually a vendored binary that depends on an | older version of some library. And that library changed its ABI | upon a minor version upgrade. Arch has packages for old major | versions of libraries. For example Telegram Desktop and | Ungoogled Chromium can break, but rarely. Breakage is resolved | within days on stable. | uptheroots wrote: | I've had the same Arch installation running since Spring 2020 on | a desktop from 2012 or so. It's not my daily driver, but still | works just fine. Even with some long periods between updates, I | don't recall any serious stability issues. | l72 wrote: | I am currently running Fedora 35. I haven't reinstalled since at | least Fedora 21 (maybe older, I can't quite remember)! Every 6 | months, I do the standard fedora upgrade and keep on going! This | reminds me, it is time to update to Fedora 36! | spear wrote: | I avoid reinstalls as well and one of my systems hasn't had a | reinstall since Fedora Core 4. This system actually started on | Red Hat Linux 8 (the precursor to Fedora, not RHEL). It was | upgraded to RH9, then FC1, etc., but I had to reinstall once (I | think disk failed during upgrade). I have been able to rescue | other upgrades that failed. | | I have upgraded literally every component multiple times so | it's a Ship of Theseus. | isodev wrote: | I use Fedora as a VM for development on other systems. I just | love the stable and smooth experience. | antongribok wrote: | I'm on Fedora 36 laptop that started from Fedora 25, and at | some point in the middle I moved from Dell XPS to LG Gram. | | To migrate machines I didn't use rsync, used dd instead. | | Zero upgrade issues, however I generally wait 2-3 months after | release before upgrading. | BirAdam wrote: | he uses arch, btw | danjoredd wrote: | What a chad. I wish I was that consistent. I distro-hop about | once every other week | kelp wrote: | I always love hearing these stories, especially because I'm too | fickle to stick with something that long. I've mostly been a Mac | user since maybe Puma or Jaguar, but I disto hop every few years. | Spent a good while on Debian, Ubuntu, Arch, FreeBSD and OpenBSD. | Still have an OpenBSD Thinkpad x1 Gen 6 around somewhere. That | OpenBSD install could age like this, but I fat fingered a dd | command and nuked the system disk in mid 2020, so it got a fresh | install then. | | Had various Arch installs on desktop and Thinkpad that I used as | my day to day for while, but I always just ended up back on my | Mac. And I get a new Mac every few years. | | Any Linux I've had always ends up getting torn down at some | point. I get a new computer and do a fresh install. | rockyj wrote: | This is so good, but Arch only annoys me in 1 way - that every | week I need to download 500MB of updates. If I go away for a | couple of weeks, my computer will most likely have 2 GB of | updates pending. | capableweb wrote: | How many packages (via pacman I assume?) do you have installed | in total? | mastermedo wrote: | I'm in the same boat. Never saw a need to reinstall, there's been | hiccups where after an untimely upgrade the system won't boot. | But it's a 30min fix every 3-4years. | jesse__ wrote: | I had one of the worst debugging experiences of my life | installing Arch (before I knew anything about linux, or | programming), followed by probably the most delightful computing | experience of my life using that installation for the next | several years. | | I don't use Arch anymore, but I think about going back to it all | the time. Hopefully one of these days I actually pull up my socks | and install it again. | renewiltord wrote: | I left my computer in storage for a year while I lived elsewhere | and I couldn't upgrade through pacman. There was no simple viable | upgrade. The constraints just couldn't be met. Fortunately, all I | had to do was reformat / and go again since I keep most user | config in /home | | Really enjoyed it otherwise | ablob wrote: | You probably cant test it anymore, but I think it might have | had something to do with the keys. I had a similar problem with | failing upgrades once, until I updated the keyring. | renewiltord wrote: | Ah. Good tip. Thank you. I'll keep that in mind for next | time. | vladvasiliu wrote: | This. | | The easy way, usually, is installing the previous keyring | packages from the archive. | | And maybe peruse the "news" page for any manual intervention | required. There aren't many, so for a year of missed updates | it should be quick enough. | traverseda wrote: | Weird AUR packages? | renewiltord wrote: | I just had the one nvidia dkms one. But that one actually | worked fine. | janci wrote: | This. When I took my old Arch laptop from drawer after few | months it was impossible to upgrade without removing half of | the system. | codeflo wrote: | The keyring issue that other commenters mention has to be the | dumbest misfeature ever, because upgrading is guaranteed to fail, | yet nobody fixes it. To make things worse, one of the top Google | suggestions is a pacman command that can cause libc to be | upgraded without a full system upgrade, which will make your | system unusable immediately. No process will launch after that. I | had to do very desperate recovery steps when that happened to me. | To be honest, I'm still not entirely sure how to safely fix the | keyring issue when it happens. | | Other than that, and this may sound very strange given the last | paragraph, Arch is _fantastic_. It 's the most usable and useful | system for general software development I've ever owned. | Basically, you follow the wiki, and everything just works, sound, | graphics, wifi. I never had that with Linux, not with Ubuntu, not | with SuSE. | demux wrote: | Booting with a live USB, mounting the root dir and doing a | manual downgrade of libc could work | codeflo wrote: | Yeah, something like that. I don't remember the full steps I | took, but it involved pacman-static from the AUR, which is a | pacman build that works without a working libc. I think I | used the USB boot method you mention, but with pacman-static, | I was able to go forward and do a full system upgrade. | nyadesu wrote: | This matches my experience as well, been using it since 6 or 7 | years ago, and it feels nice to know I can rely on my OS install. | If something breaks I have to learn how to fix it and that | knowledge builds up over time. Way better than other operating | systems where I'm totally screwed if something breaks up and the | only thing I can do is run in circles. | | I also use i3wm btw | [deleted] | Legion wrote: | I wonder how many, if any, original install components are still | present in that Ship of Theseus. | IceDane wrote: | I never quite made it to a decade, but I think I definitely hit 5 | years. | | Yes, there have been breakages, but none very bad and thus not | very memorable. Interestingly, some breakages were due to windows | update doing something bad since I was dual booting. | | Before switching to arch, I used ubuntu for years, and that was | not nearly as pleasant an experience. Upgrading ubuntu versions | always failed in some horrible way for me and I had to just | reinstall the new version instead, and the way ubuntu is put | together made it a horrible experience if you ever needed to | install software that didn't jive with it(like something that | required an updated version of some gnome dependency). | cosmiccatnap wrote: | I had a laptop in storage and went on a trip. I didn't want to | bring an expensive MacBook but I did want something that could | take a note or two and check my email so I took a very old Dell | latitude with me running arch on an intel 2xxx something | (ancient) | | When I booted it up I realized to my surprise I had been running | arch not windows...so I checked my email and then decided on the | hotel wifi to try and update it. | | I will admit after about 6 years there was quite a bit of | fumbling with pacman sources and keyrings and the delta to | upgrade on a laptop that old and hotel wifi wasn't great but | after I left it for an hour it finished. | | I rebooted it and there I was in i3 without a thing wrong. Wild | | Maybe if I used gnome it would have been a different story but I | think the point of the article holds that arch is much more | stable than people give it credit for if you are willing to learn | a bit about how it works. | valbaca wrote: | Exhibiting the self discipline to not distro-hop in 10 years is | more commendable...but I guess that's Arch Linux for you. | malermeister wrote: | Yeah Arch is basically the final destination all that distro | hopping gets you to. | | No reason to hop once you've arrived. | dhruvmittal wrote: | That said, I strongly recommend letting the distro hopping | take you on a journey before you land on Arch-- don't skip to | the end. It's nice to see how things are done elsewhere | (defaults, etc.) so that you've got some opinions by the time | you get to Arch and configure your own take on things. | colordrops wrote: | If you can get past the learning curve, Nix is the final | destination. | bstamour wrote: | I used arch around 2008 or so, then distro-hopped to | Slackware, when I remain to this day. Some of us escape. | bananaowl wrote: | I started on slack and hopped on over to arch eventually. | But lately been considering going back to Slackware again. | Circle of slack. | evh wrote: | s/Arch/Gentoo/ | | I did run Arch for a while around 2010 but it didn't take. | It's nice to find a permanent home - I've been on Gentoo | since 2013 and an acquaintance has been on Slackware since | the 90s. | | Those three seems to be where us tinkerers end up. | isatty wrote: | +1 - Arch is fine, but it doesn't have Portage. | malermeister wrote: | Those three do seem like the popular ones amongst the | tinkerers. | | Could I ask what your favorite things about Gentoo are? | | For me, with Arch, it's how up-to-date the repos are and | how it doesn't make me compile everything myself. Should | something not be available in the repos, chances are I can | still compile it myself and build a package using AUR. | | Another thing I like is the excellent wiki. | daxvena wrote: | I thought the exact same thing until I switched to NixOS. I | love Arch, but I'd never go back. | isatty wrote: | Never had the urge to distro hop after settling on Gentoo, 12 | years ago. I've not seen a better package manager in all that | time, just amazing. | craggyjaggy wrote: | I'll be coming up on 10 years as well, mostly just because of | the AUR. Whatever obscure/proprietary program you might need, | there's a decent chance some helpful person has packaged it up. | Also has the advantage of easily being able to uninstall the | weird 10 year old perl/python/mono version the thing needed to | run that would otherwise probably stay on my machine forever. | encryptluks2 wrote: | What I love about the AUR is that if it doesn't exist, it is | extremely easy to create a package. Debian packaging and Red | Hat packaging were just not very intuitive. PKGBUILDs are | simple and effective. Alpine also has similar packaging as | Arch. | flaviut wrote: | 100% agreed. | | I've spent quite a bit of time modifying deb source files | and rpm source files to do upgrades/downgrades/patches. | | I could never start from scratch in making a package. I'd | be so incredibly overwhelmed by all the different options | and obtuse syntaxes and level of background required. | | Writing a batch script that installs everything into a | `$pkgdir` directory is so much easier to understand and get | started with. And if you publish to the AUR and have some | small issue, someone will eventually show up and tell you | what's wrong with your script. | tedajax wrote: | When I was first getting into Linux ~2006-2007 I distro hopped | constantly until a friend told me about Arch and then there was | no more reason to distro hop :) | Enginerrrd wrote: | I distrohopped a lot for my desktops and then stopped when I | got to arch. | | For servers, I've used CentOS, Ubuntu, and debian. I never did | get too into the the CentOS redhat side of things. I'm not sure | why that is except that I just was used to the debian way of | doing things... In general, my go to is debian or Ubuntu. | Ubuntu is the only distro where every damn time I've managed to | break it in ways I can't figure out how to fix. Arch and debian | are the only distro s where I've been able to fix something | screwed up without a full nuke and reinstall. And I HAVE | screwed some things up pretty bad. | | Arch though is just so good. I just don't quite trust it to | handle updates unattended so I don't use it on servers. | edoceo wrote: | I've been using the same base-install of Gentoo since like 2010. | Switched from Gnome to Xfce some time ago; new machines just | `rsync` the stuff over. But when the root partition when from | /dev/sda3 to /dev/nvme0p3 there was some switching. | | Back in my Windows days (1990-2001) I was _NEVER_ able to do | anything like that; copying that damned registry. Had to make | special files; apps would never work. It was a game changer to | find a system that was as simple as copy the files to the new | hardware. | 5e92cb50239222b wrote: | I haven't tried this in a while, but Windows 10 can too be | rsynced between different systems. Fixing the bootloader is a | major PITA though, and I had to relearn doing that every time. | Of course, it then spends half an hour installing new drivers | for everything, but it is expected in that world. | bombcar wrote: | In the Windows 2k era I would do it, but it involved somehow | tricking the system to think it was doing "first boot after | install" and using default drivers for everything (especially | the chipset). With some trickery you could get it to work | (sometimes you had to preinstall the new chipset driver where | it could find it. | | Wasn't worth it usually. | TacticalCoder wrote: | I always reinstall from scratch although I could just Debian | "dist upgrade". My thinking is this: if, ten years ago, I somehow | missed a security patch or some 0-day owned my machine before it | was patched, then I'd potentially have been copying / dd'ing / | rsync'ing a rootkit for ten years. | | By installing from scratch at every new stable (or unstable) | release, I get rid of a lot of potential security issues. | | Now as an anecdote: ten years with the same install is nice | but... I've got a dedicated server at OVH with 3400 days of | _uptime_. You read that correctly. Nearly ten years of _uptime_. | Once in a while I give temporary ssh access to people here and | there just so they can type "uptime" and see. Kids: don't try | this at home. Yes, it's insecure (although there's a firewall and | only the SSH port open). No, it doesn't do much nor is it very | useful. But it's fun to think I own one of the computer in the | world with the biggest uptime. | | I plan to kill it once it reaches ten years \o/ | WfAjWDYpDHDYCN5 wrote: | If you have a rootkit that you're concerned about copying | around, that can somehow persist through pretty much everything | on the system being upgraded at some point or another... you | should probably also be worried about the various vectors that | the rootkit could use to persist across OS reloads. | TacticalCoder wrote: | I don't disagree with that but some OS re-installs also | correspond with buying an entirely new machine. And I'm the | kind of paranoid person which burns instal DVDs and then | checks the DVD's checksums from an offline computer before | doing an install on my desktop, for example. Now, sure, the | rootkit may try to hide in my Git repos (but that's not the | easiest trick to pull) or shell scripts (but they're | versioned with Git) etc. | | I still like it that way: a good old write-once DVD, | checksum'ed, and a brand new install. Ideally on new hardware | but that's not always the case. | sascha_sl wrote: | It doesn't really need to be well hidden if you're not | actively looking. A shell script and a crontab entry / bashrc | exec / init system entry is very low tech. | | Pair that with a slightly higher (but still low overall) tech | LD_PRELOAD libc shim so it hides itself and you got something | just stealthy enough that you wouldn't find it if you don't | look for it. | | Remember, the easiest privilege escalation is aliasing sudo | and patience. | Symmetry wrote: | I reinstall with every new version of Ubuntu for that, and to | force myself to exercise my backups and install from scratch | scripts. | burntsushi wrote: | This is the best I've got, almost 2 years: $ | w 15:25 up 725 days, 6:06, 1 user, load averages: | 1.31 1.21 1.30 USER TTY FROM | LOGIN@ IDLE WHAT andrew s000 192.168.1.200 | 15:25 - w | | But! This is a system in my office at home. Not in a data | center somewhere. | LAC-Tech wrote: | I'm more impressed you didn't get a single power cut in that | time. | burntsushi wrote: | Oh I have. We get power outages all the time where I live. | At least a few a year that last 8+ hours. Have even had | some multi-day outages. | | I have all my machines plugged into UPSes and we have a | standby whole home generator. So the only way any of my | machines shut down is if I do it explicitly. | trashburger wrote: | Is that plugged to a UPS or is your power just that stable? | burntsushi wrote: | I get lots of outages. At least one a year that is 8+ | hours. It's plugged into a UPS and I have a whole home | standby generator. | TacticalCoder wrote: | Coming from the author of ripgrep, which is a tool I use | daily, I've got to say it's an honor to see you answering my | silly comment! | | Office at home certainly beats datacenter hosted but by 5x? | Not sure... ; ) | burntsushi wrote: | Hah. The only way it's possible where I live is with a UPS | combined with a whole home standby generator. | | (I got the generator not just for uptimes haha. Got it | because we get a lot of outages and we were losing a lot of | spoiled goods from our fridge. About half our neighborhood | has generators of some kind.) | jmnicolas wrote: | Don't you need to reboot after kernel updates? | burntsushi wrote: | This particular machine is a mac mini. Otherwise, I have a | lot of machines. I just don't get around to updating and | rebooting them that often. | | I very rarely use the mac mini. Basically just for testing. | So at some point, it got to a crazy uptime and now I'm | purposely trying to see how long I can go haha. | | In theory the battery in UPS will eventually need to be | replaced. Otherwise I don't see it ever losing power given | that I have a generator | sleepydog wrote: | I reinstall every 2 years or so simply to re-evaluate what | tools I have and decide if I really want them enough to install | and configure them again. It's part of the reason I resist | systems like Nix, Guix, or even dotfile management tools. | hollerith wrote: | That doesn't make much sense because Nix doesn't prevent you | from reinstalling, and after you reinstall, you are not | forced to copy your old configuration.nix to your new | /etc/nixos/. | kevincox wrote: | In fact I think Nix is much better here. Instead of | reinstalling you can just audit your configuration for | anything that you don't want. You don't need to worry about | stray packages, config files or services like on other | distributions. And of course if you accidentally clean too | much it is easy to revert via source control of your config | file. | colordrops wrote: | Funny, I've had the opposite experience. Because Nix is so | stable and allows risk-free easy experimentation and | rollbacks, I'm always re-evaluating and upgrading my system. | An added benefit is that the changes you make stick, and | you've got a paper trail of the changes in git. You can | create a whole set of changes behind a single flag or config | file, and flip back and forth between different setups nearly | instantaneously. | | With Ubuntu I was afraid to change anything because I might | break things and not know how to get back to a working state. | | With Nix, you are always on a fresh, pristine system, because | the file system is mostly read-only and an exact reflection | of what's in your config. It's impossible to get crufty. | romeoblade wrote: | I reinstall once a year. Nowadays, with PXE booting, preseed | files, and automation like Ansible, everything is pretty much | automated for me. | | This goes for both my personal and work laptops. Both have been | running some version of Debian for the last ten years. For the | previous four/five years, I've been on Debian Sid, and I may | run into an issue about every other year that requires me to | use timeshift to go back to yesterday's OS backup. | | With the proper backup and automation strategies in place, I do | not see a point in not doing a reinstall periodically. It | definitely gives me peace of mind knowing I can be back online | and 98% percent functional in under an hour in most cases on | just about every device in the house. | RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: | > It definitely gives me peace of mind knowing I can be back | online and 98% percent functional in under an hour in most | cases on just about every device in the house. | | It is also a good test of disaster recovery. | | By wiping your devices and doing a fresh install, you catch | hidden assumptions. | dralley wrote: | > But it's fun to think I own one of the computer in the world | with the biggest uptime. | | The top 500 entries on that list are almost guaranteed to be | mainframes. | TacticalCoder wrote: | > The top 500 entries on that list are almost guaranteed to | be mainframes. | | That's very interesting. Your comment got me searching and I | found a link here on HN: "Stratus: Servers that won't quit - | The 24 year running computer" with quite a discussion (123 | comments) on the topic: | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13514909 | aarchi wrote: | According to Guinness, the top is Voyager 2: | | > The computer system that has been in continual operation | for the longest period is the Computer Command System (CCS) | onboard NASA's Voyager 2 spacecraft. This pair of interlinked | computers have been in operation since the spacecraft's | launch on 20 August 1977. As of 29 October 2020, the CCS has | been running for 43 years 70 days. | | https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world- | records/635980-lo... | ansible wrote: | 43 years without a single reset or revision to safe mode (a | common feature on spacecraft)? The linked article says that | they've updated the software many times, by live patching | it, instead of rebooting? | ISL wrote: | Not a lot of bugs in space, so it is hard for them to get | in.... | adastra22 wrote: | Hate to hear your Hubble, but there are systems with decades of | uptime. Great accomplishment though! | easytiger wrote: | Circa 2003 i used the same Debian install for 4 years without a | reboot. | | Fine | number6 wrote: | ITT: people telling each other that they use archlinux. | | BTW I also use archlinux | odiroot wrote: | Well, I use Manjaro. Does it count as insufferable too? | number6 wrote: | No Tux is insufferable | bombcar wrote: | Gentoo user here. | number6 wrote: | Your distro is literally named after a penguin, so what's | your point? :D | bombcar wrote: | Gentoo users are widely known to be insufferable. | number6 wrote: | Gentoo wiki is top notch. I almost used gentoo once, but | after 30 minutes in compiling vim I gave up... | bombcar wrote: | Gentoo _is_ really nice if you want complete | customizability over your install. | | I started using it long ago when RedHat 6 or something | pulled in X just to install _mpg123_. | chlorion wrote: | Are they actually? Have you spent any time in the Gentoo | community or talked to actual Gentoo users? | | I see people parrot this around a lot but from my | experience the insufferable thing is the constant | complaining and sweeping accusations against a large and | varied group of people who happen to use a certain | distro. | encryptluks2 wrote: | Because it is awesome! | Sebb767 wrote: | I actually switched to i3/sway on my Arch install ;-) | Skunkleton wrote: | It's certainly my favorite. Pragmatic, simple, and complete. | What's not to love? | jarbus wrote: | Out of all the distributions I've tested, pure arch has been the | most stable, most documented, most fixable distro yet I've dealt | with yet | rodolphoarruda wrote: | > "With Ubuntu, I would've had to upgrade (...) five times to end | up with the latest LTS release.* And these release upgrades don't | always go smoothly either." | | I read this in the exact moment I was upgrading to 22.04.1 end it | stopped due to lack of space in /boot. A rare case of | synchronicity in my life. | ElDji wrote: | $ head -1 /var/log/pacman.log [2014-03-24 23:03] [PACMAN] | Running 'pacman -S yaourt' | | Eight years so far ... | discreditable wrote: | I've had the same install going since January 2012: | > head -1 /var/log/pacman.log [2012-01-22 14:55] | installed filesystem (2011.12-2) | | In that time I've converted the install in-place from x86 to x64, | migrated from legacy boot to uefi, replaced the entire RAID set | twice, motherboards, CPUs, etc. It's my own ship of theseus. Many | of these tasks people would say to do a reinstall, but I've | always been able to find a guide on the arch wiki to do it in- | place without losing anything. | Max-q wrote: | What is the advantage of keeping the installation instead of | starting from scratch when buying a new computer? | ReactiveJelly wrote: | No idea. I think of /home as the important part. Everything | else is disposable. | | If I could painlessly flip the FHS, I'd have something like | /system, /data, and /config. | | /system would be "Files you can download from your package | manager verbatim". This is what apt and pacman create and | update. If I lose it, who cares, just re-install the OS. | | /data would be human-made and only human-made. Not even program | preferences. This is the only thing I really care about backing | up. | | /config would be all the dumb little dotfiles that won't put | themselves properly in $HOME/.config. This is stuff that might | be important, but since I didn't choose the names of the files | or for them to exist, I don't want them cluttering up /data, | and I don't want a program complaining if I delete a file in | _my_ /home that the _program_ thought belonged to it. | | I think Android does something kinda like this. Android is | right twice a day. | sleek wrote: | I a million percent agree with this. I've NEVER had major issues | with Arch. It's my forever linux. | oleg_antonyan wrote: | So basically you use Arch Linux? (: | | btw, I use openSUSE Tumbleweed - more stable rolling release and | it's awesome. Never going back to regular release with painful | major updates every few years | kakwa_ wrote: | Personally, I am using Debian Sid. The only somewhat painful | part are the proprietary Nvidia drivers when a significant | kernel upgrade occurs, but it's usually just a matter of | selecting an older kernel in grub for a few days. Other than | that, it's really up to date, and with an extensive choice of | packages. | hs86 wrote: | My last clean Windows installation was in 2007 with Vista, and | since then, I ran in-place upgrades to get to the next immediate | version. It survived multiple mainboard changes and moved from | MBR IDE HDDs to GPT SATA SSDs. (With the help of Acronis/Macrium | images) | | The next big move would be to change to a Mainboard+CPU with | Windows 11 support and an NVMe disk. I wonder how feasible this | will be. | ht85 wrote: | In my experience fresh no-bloat windows installs boot in | seconds, which gets slower and slower every major soft or | hardware upgrade. | | Is your boot still fast? | | Nice username btw. | hs86 wrote: | No, it is not booting up very fast, but it is still ok as I | usually don't reboot that often. I remember one severe | increase in the user login duration, and this was caused by | the high number of files in a temp folder which Disk Cleanup | somehow did not delete. | | Manually deleting those solved this issue, and over the | years, I have only used the standard tools included in | Windows to maintain the system. No tuning or cleaning tools | that defrag the registry, download some RAM or do some other | magic. | buttersbrian wrote: | have an Arch install that's been running for ~8 years. It's | solid. Went through the same growing pains as others. Most | recently the pipewire change. | | Love Arch. | endorphine wrote: | Kinda off-topic: how does Arch compare to Debian, in terms of UX | and stability? (I'm a programmer and I use i3) | david_draco wrote: | Did this with Gentoo for a decade, even across two computer | changes. boot into a rescue disk, set up grub, then for each | partition do ssh oldcomputer "gzip</dev/sda5"|zcat>/dev/sda5, | then resize the fs. | thesuitonym wrote: | When I say Arch is not stable, I don't mean that you can't leave | it running for a long period of time. I mean that it changes. | Debian is not stable because you can run it for a long time | without crashing (You sure can, but you can also run Debian with | daily crashes, depending on what you're running). Debian is | stable because it doesn't change. You get security updates, but | you don't get feature updates, because feature updates introduce | change, and the way you thought something was done is not the way | to do it anymore. Flags change, output changes, inputs change. | None of this is bad, but with Debian you know it won't happen | until you're ready to move on to the next version. "Unstable" | distros can introduce these changes at any time, making it harder | to review what will change. | dima55 wrote: | Debian releases do what you say. But you can also run | Debian/unstable, which is the bleeding edge rolling "release". | It works quite well, and many people run that on their | machines. | vladvasiliu wrote: | While I agree with your definition of "stable", in my case its | effects are reversed: I much prefer having to deal with one | change from time to time, than having to apply a big update | where possibly "everything changes" all of a sudden. Although, | granted, this is much more likely to avoid "yoyo changes", | where a rollback is necessary because the new shiny is actually | broken. | | I didn't take notes and don't remember the specifics, but I | have a small VM running on some cloud that only hosts LXC | containers, so not much is installed on it. I did an update | from Ubuntu 20.04 to 22.04: multiple dozens of packages were | removed, and multiple new ones added. | gjs278 wrote: | Linda703 wrote: | ISL wrote: | I'm fairly certain that my current Debian installation dates from | ~2006, whenever I tired of running Gentoo for its amd64 support | and returned to Debian, which I had used from 2001-2004. | | It is wonderful that these distributions maintain an ongoing | upgrade path that lets us move smoothly through our computing | lives limited disruption. Support your local distros and package | maintainers! | | (Typing this comment reminded me that I hadn't donated to Debian | in ages. Just did.) | fareesh wrote: | I stuck with Ubuntu (eventually Kubuntu) for many years because I | thought it was the best for a no-fuss distro for folks who wanted | things to just work (TM). I was afraid of things randomly | breaking and interrupting my daily work. One day I eventually bit | the bullet and installed Arch instead. The experience has been | phenomenal, and if anything it feels _more_ stable than Ubuntu. I | was underestimating my own Linux knowledge, and it really isn 't | difficult to setup/configure at all if you have a reasonable | understanding of how Linux works. The initial installation can be | done by just following one of the many YouTube videos that break | down the process step by step - you may even learn something if | you don't already know it. I can't ever see myself going back. | vlunkr wrote: | For me the big difference with Arch is that you choose all the | different pieces (networking, disk setup, desktop environment, | login manager, etc.), so when something goes wrong, you know | exactly where to look. If something goes wrong in Ubuntu, | especially as a beginner all you can do is google "Ubuntu wifi | disconnecting" or whatever. It's definitely more work to get | installed, but you come away with something very personal, that | you understand very well. | mikewhy wrote: | Nowadays arch install ISOs have an `archinstall` script that | can get you going for basic setups. | capableweb wrote: | > The initial installation can be done by just following one of | the many YouTube videos | | Even easier, the ArchWiki has detailed steps you can follow | along at your own speed, together with links to each topic for | a deep dive (which isn't required, but nice to have when you do | need it). Reading through and following the "Installation | Guide" + "General Recommendations" pages would take you 2-3 | hours at most, and you'll end up with a fully installed and | ready system :) | minimilian wrote: | With the Arch Wiki and a little determination you don't need | any prior knowledge of Linux. | okamiueru wrote: | I was in the same situation. My fresh install adjustments to | Ubuntu consisted of a long list of apt packages, removing snap, | dep packages, ppa's and some make builds. | | I finally tried arch, and my long list of custom manual | shenanigans was reduced to packman + aur. I'm seriously | impressed, and it gave me a renewed hope for OSS. | | I've used Linux, Windows and MacOS. For what an operating | system does, the only flaw Linux has is due to lack of software | and driver availability, neither of which has anything to do | with the operating system itself. Because for what it is, and | what it does, Linux and gnome is imo, absolutely excellent. | herpderperator wrote: | I'm the same but with Gentoo, which is another rolling | distribution. I've had it installed for over 12 years on multiple | servers without any issues. | cb321 wrote: | Hrm... $ qlop -tvm|head -n1 | 2007-01-18T19:50:33 >>> x11-base/xorg-server-1.1.1-r4: 9'23'' | yjftsjthsd-h wrote: | Likewise, I think my oldest install is a Void Linux system | (another rolling release). Unfortunately, I have no clue how | old it is; musl doesn't keep login records (wtmp?), and this | install has lived through not merely multiple machines (moving | hard drives from one box to another) but multiple filesystems | (rsynced from I think ext4 to f2fs to zfs) and I think one of | those jumps lost timestamps because the oldest time I can get | is younger than I think the system is. Regardless, there's | something special about that degree of continuity - at work, I | like cattle, but at home I actually enjoy having a pet around. | aidenn0 wrote: | My preferred distro journey went: Mandrake -> Gentoo -> Debian | -> Gentoo -> NixOS | | I rage-quit Gentoo the first time (2002ish?) for Debian when | stable portage got a broken version of gcc, making it very hard | to recover. The second Gentoo was by far the longest, maybe | 2003 through 2018? I'm 4 years into NixOS now and _very_ happy | with it. I actually run into issues with switching to new | release channels almost as often as I did the few times I | experimented with Ubuntu, but it 's just _so much easier_ to | work around these issues by mixing-and-matching packages from | different channels[1] that it just doesn 't bother me. | | It also got me to love systemd. Configuring systemd units | (especially timers!) with nix is so much more ergonomic than | the bare files that I pity anyone who has to do it by hand. | | 1: 95% of the time it's already fixed in unstable, the other 5% | of the time I pull in the version from the previous release | channel. | daxvena wrote: | For me it was: Windows -> Xandros (1 year) -> Ubuntu (6 | years) -> Arch (4 years) -> NixOS (4 years) | | Except I never actually installed Xandros myself, my dad just | brought it home from work one day and installed in my | computer. | silasdavis wrote: | Windows -> Solaris -> Windows -> Gentoo -> Arch -> NixOS | | I feel much more satisfaction pouring hours into NixOS over | doing the same on Gentoo and Arch. The hours on nix are in a | source file I can carry around. The hours on Gentoo and Arch | I'm doomed to forget and have to repeat. | | I do miss the AUR though. I haven't been able to package a | rust program that has a build with a transitive dependency | that expects internet access (https://github.com/foundry- | rs/foundry). Something something sandbox, crate2nix. But a | frivolous install of a little binary that isn't packaged is | not necessarily an easy endeavour. | | Overall I'm very happy. Nix unstable feels equivalent to Arch | more or less. You can pull in master with flakes easily | enough too. | aidenn0 wrote: | Yes, builds that expect internet access are not friendly | with nix. It's particularly annoying when such packages are | in something like cargo: | | A: "We built this nice tool named cargo that manages | transitive dependencies for you and will automatically | fetch and build them from the internet" | | B: F-this, I'll just download a tarball from the internet. | capableweb wrote: | Ironically, what cargo does is just downloading tarballs | from the internet for you. | entropie wrote: | Same here. My gentoo installation on my previous machine was | setup as I bought the PC, somewhere around 2008. | | I tried arch but it does not feel like home. | [deleted] | Rackedup wrote: | How often did the upgrade process broke? I've been using it for a | few years and it broke a few times... but overall very happy. | delusional wrote: | My install has been alive since 2014. I've never had the | upgrade process outright break. One in a while it requires some | manual intervention like holding something back, or ignoring | some package while upgrading. The only really "big" problem was | when i switched from Nvidia to AMD and had to boot from a usb | to restore the video drivers after failing to completely | configure them. | | This install has moved 4 disks in this time. Never a reinstall, | just an rsync a a new fstab. | Rackedup wrote: | > Once in a while it requires some manual intervention | | that's what I meant by breaking | radium3d wrote: | I've had good luck once I get a system going with arch. Only | rarely are there manual interventions required for updates, I | just run pacman -Syyu every few days. I just try to install very | few packages, only what I need for the server. | ddggdd wrote: | I bought a samsung np900x3g about 5 years ago for the reason it's | too cheap and put archlinux on it. then I used it as my main | computer, bought 2 ryzen rtx gaming laptop since then, but only | use them to play some games. it's a 8 years old computer and I | suspect with arch I can use it for at least several years more, | and I doubt any people here is still rocking a i5-4200u , but it | work perfectly for me. | luciusdomitius wrote: | Mine is around 6-7 years old. Started off as an Antergos on | T450s, then moved to T480 and later on I replaced the extra repos | and the startup logo with EndeavourOS after the Antergos ones | went dark. | | However, I can see a noticable slowdown and some services | occasionally acting weird - once every few months i need to | switch to a terminal and use loginctl to unlock my session. I am | seriously considering a reinstall, no matter how humiliating that | sounds. | nfhshy68 wrote: | I tried to do a reinstall a while back. Gave up around 4 hours | in. Installing arch was easy, getting it how I liked it on the | other hand. That was gonna take another couple weekends of | figuring out what I did 5 years ago to make X work just right. | luciusdomitius wrote: | I expect the same, but on the other hand many things related | to X configuration have improved since then (dpi, multi- | screen, etc), so I was hoping the result would be better. I | need only xfce, appmenu and plank anyway. | powersnail wrote: | Also a rolling release, I've used the same openSUSE Tumbleweed | install for 4 years. The benefit is that if something breaks, I | just reboot and rollback, and wait for a few days until they fix | it. I've never had to worry about tinkering with failure due to | update. | aidenn0 wrote: | I don't think I've _ever_ done an Ubuntu release upgrade without | having at least one thing break. Admittedly, my sample size is | rather small because I stopped using Ubuntu for that very reason. | jandrese wrote: | Funnily enough my main box is an Ubuntu 22 machine that started | life as an Ubuntu 16 machine. | | The only problem I have at the moment is the root filesystem is | on an early 64GB SSD and it's getting a bit cramped. Well, that | and Ubuntu 22 really took a big steaming dump on Firefox. :( It | has to run out of a container that cripples it. | | I only update on even years though, so only 3 major updates. | Not really all that exciting. I also have a FreeBSD box that | started out as FreeBSD 8 something and is currently FreeBSD | 13-RELEASE. This had some issues because the software RAID I | was using became deprecated and I had to move all of the data | off to a backup drive and rebuild the data drive at one point. | wing-_-nuts wrote: | I recently switched to an arch flavor because the AUR had a lot | of little small utilities that make life better on wayland. Also, | it's quite easy to install the latest version of golang and rust, | etc. | | Pros: Documentation is excellent. Better than even Gentoo or | Ubuntu's docs. | | Cons: Arch doesn't have an installer, and seems almost militantly | against providing one, or a lot of other little utilities that | could improve the user experience. I get the same sort of 'I | suffered, therefore you must suffer, learn to RTFM noob' elitism | that I saw with slackware 20 years ago. I'm a grizzled vet, I can | figure this stuff out, but it doesn't help your average | technically literate joe. | | Updates seem to break for odd reasons. I had to uninstall nodejs | to be able to do a system update. Why? There should be some sort | of automated way to address this. | [deleted] | zdragnar wrote: | For me, Manjaro has been a fantastic base on top of Arch to | start with- installer, desktop configured for the flavor you | pick, and things Just Work out of the box, including the usual | suspects like wifi, media keys (speakers, backlight, etc). | | My only real complaint was that I wanted to do a fairly | extensive change to the sway configs, and tracking down where | they put all the config files took a bit of time. | oblak wrote: | But with Manjaro you don't have to personally babysit every | computer in the house. Imagine not having your wife and/or | child mad after the occasional update breaks things and | they're helpless because they simply refuse to get intimate | with the OS their own computer! What kind of world would that | be? | zdragnar wrote: | Well, the wife has a chromebook, and the kid is moved out | on her own and pretty much only uses a phone anyway, so | it's a pretty nice world, to be honest :) | | At some point I'm tempted to get a fat server going so I | can do my dev work remotely to it using a super light | weight / long battery life laptop, but that's a | complication too far at the moment. | xxpor wrote: | There're some Arch-derived distros that are basically just Arch | + some choices made for you + an installer, like | https://endeavouros.com/ | wing-_-nuts wrote: | This is exactly what I'm running :^) | cycomanic wrote: | Should have scrolled down before replying. I agree endeavour | is excellent. | kingaillas wrote: | Another vote for Endeavour. | | I already run Ubuntu on my NUC, and when I was looking around | to install on my former gamebox (i.e. computer with a | graphics card unlike NUC with onboard graphics only) I wanted | something with good steam/nvidia integration. It came down to | either Pop! OS or Endeavor... because while I develop | software I also want to play games without futzing around too | much. | | Very happy with Endeavour: pacman or yay for nearly | everything, no hassle graphics drivers updates (system always | suggests a reboot after and I always do that). | 5e92cb50239222b wrote: | I think you misunderstood the point of the distribution. | There's no installer because Arch developers have no need of | one. They're creating the distribution for themselves, and if | you find it useful (I do), that's great. There's no expectation | that an "average technically literate joe" is going to use it | because he's not in its target group. | wing-_-nuts wrote: | Arch isn't some small LFS niche distro anymore. At a certain | point, you have to embrace at least some small amount of | usability, or at least not reject PRs to add it. I found it | quite embarrassing when one of the most popular distros out | there had a worse installer than deb or slack from 20 years | ago. That's not 'oops we forgot', it's not 'it was never | really a priority' that's blatant user hostile elitism. | bee_rider wrote: | I don't think you should be embarrassed. An offer to | provide code review, continuing development, and community | support for this new feature is quite generous of you. They | might not have decided to prioritize it, but at least you | can be proud of the fact that you aren't just nitpicking | from the sidelines, right? | ratorx wrote: | Any decent installer is non-trivial code and you cannot | expect unpaid volunteers to write or maintain code that | they don't want to write or maintain. | | I don't see what the size of the distro has to do with it. | Regardless of size, if there are users who have the time | commitment and knowledge necessary to get commit rights and | build and maintain an installer (as there is now), then it | will have one. Otherwise it will not. | | There's no user hostility necessary for this sequence of | events to happen. | _Algernon_ wrote: | That is only true if the Arch developers seek user growth | beyond the niche they currently have. You are not entitled | to them spending their time to meet your demand, though you | are free to build your own distribution on top of it (or | use one of the many available ones). | evh wrote: | > blatant user hostile elitism | | ...and that's a _feature_. There 's nothing wrong with Arch | doing its thing, there's always | Debian/Ubuntu/Fedora/Manjaro/whatever - and Gentoo for | those with taste. | boomboomsubban wrote: | It's "maintaining an installer is a tedious chore I don't | want to do as my hobby." Not elitism, eventually they did | attract someone who wanted to maintain an installer as | their hobby and now they have archinstall. | collegeburner wrote: | actually no you don't have to go change your project's | philosophy bc different ppl start using it and demand | different stuff. this is the kind of attitude that makes | ppl hate maintaining FOSS anything. | girvo wrote: | Except there is an installer now, so your arguments against | it are moot. | johnchristopher wrote: | You just proved parent's point. | loudmax wrote: | I don't know that it's elitism so much as not an interesting | problem to solve. Like a lot of software, it's straightforward | to automate the easy parts of an installer. But for it to work | reliably, you have to account for so many corner cases and that | it can become tedious and take a lot of dedication to get | right. I think most Arch maintainers would rather spend their | time working on Pacman or system stability issues that benefit | themselves rather than new users. | | I think most people who want easy access to Arch just go with | Manjaro, which is close enough and gives you access to the AUR. | twelvedogs wrote: | Endeavour os lets you install barbones arch if you untick | enough checkboxes in the installer, I tried manjaro but they | put on too much extra stuff | cycomanic wrote: | If you want an installer and some utilities to make life a bit | easier while staying on arch I can recommend endeavouros. It is | really just vanilla arch with an installer and some convenience | packages. | Skunkleton wrote: | I would like to defend arch here. | | In my experience, Arch's main focus is on upholding a simple | consistent architecture. There are tools that do something like | the bare minimum required work, and then excellent | documentation so that the end user can correctly perform the | remaining required work manually (or via their own scripts). | | As a result, there are certain features that will probably | never be implemented. For example, if you wait too long between | upgrades, your signing keys will be out of date. The solution | is to upgrade the "archlinux-keyring" package first. Should | pacman automatically do this? It would be nice, but it would | also introduce a special case into pacman. Would that special | case be abused to do unexpected things? | | Another example is installers. Writing a basic installer for a | single machine is easy. Writing an installer that covers any | machine is very hard. Writing an installer that covers any | machine with any configuration the user might want is | impossible. | | Put another way, everyone likes that Arch has up to date | packages and an excellent wiki. Would either of these exist if | there was a bunch of extra complexity that needed to be | integrated? Is there any need for an excellent wiki if | installers automatically resolve all your problems? | wolletd wrote: | I love that Arch has no extra configuration system. I'm | building Debian images at work for like three years now and | still don't really get how debconf works. | | Also, the amount of patches, workarounds and custom | configuration files in most packages and maintainer scripts | is just wild. Coming from more than ten years of Arch, it | took me a while to learn to check the debian packaging source | if upstream doesn't match the behaviour on my system. | sam_lowry_ wrote: | >Arch's main focus is on upholding a simple consistent | architecture | | I though it is all about doing it the upstream way. | wyclif wrote: | That's the flip side of the coin. | WfAjWDYpDHDYCN5 wrote: | They're talking about an installer for Arch itself (which | could and should support the bare minimum options that most | users want), which is what it didn't have until recently; not | installers for packages within Arch, which it has always had. | | So, would it add a bunch of extra complexity? Not really; | it's actually tiny compared to making a package manager and | maintaining its library. | | Would it take away from maintaining the package library? I | guess a bit. | | Would there still be a need for documentation? Of course. | giantrobot wrote: | > Another example is installers. Writing a basic installer | for a single machine is easy. Writing an installer that | covers any machine is very hard. Writing an installer that | covers any machine with any configuration the user might want | is impossible. | | This is a cop out. An installer doesn't need to cover _every_ | option a user might want. An installer only covering popular | options /configurations is only a problem if the installer is | the only way to install the system. If it's just an option | itself during the install there's no issue. The weird corner | case can still be handled manually while more common options | can be handled by an installer. | chrsig wrote: | I'd call it more likely a form a neurosis than a cop-out. | | It can be hard to resist some analysis paralysis when faced | with an incredibly broad problem. There's a strong urge to | find one solution to cover all cases. Trying to do | everything at once being so overwhelming that it's | impossible to get even started on it. | | Of course, you're correct that the best thing to carve out | the most common cases and then iterate. I've found that it | takes time and experience to gain the wisdom to learn the | perfect is the enemy of the good. | __del__ wrote: | arch used to have an installer. it didn't work for | everyone, and caused a lot of complaining. turned out | most people could do the steps themselves. | | it has an installer again. maybe the userbase will | change. | ratorx wrote: | I think the historical opposition of Arch devs to an | installer is more maintenance. Most advanced users end up | scripting their own specific system or getting a muscle | memory for installing it (and that's if they install Arch | frequently at all). | | Most if not all Arch devs are likely advanced users, they | didn't need to maintain a user friendly installer for | themselves so the old one got out of date and was removed. | | What's probably changed recently is that Arch has grown | enough to get devs/trusted users who actually wanted to | write and maintain an installer, so now it has one. | | I find the Arch dev justification/perspective for most | things much better than many users on the forums who tend | to pick up the basic idea and cargo cult it whilst losing | the context behind it. | superduperuser wrote: | Being that Arch is maintained with arch users in mind[0], | building an installer for that user base would have to | entail a wide range of option for unique use cases because | that's whats expected of their users[1]. There isn't a | "cop-out" or "plea" to users outside of the community | because it was never a goal to appease them. | | [0]https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Arch_Linux#User_central | ity | | [1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Arch_Linux#Versatility | WfAjWDYpDHDYCN5 wrote: | No, it wouldn't, because that versatility can be attained | by... not using the installer, the _exact same as the | situation without an installer_. | | An installer, if anything, _improves_ "user centrality" | because you're making it more accessible and usable to | most users with just the most common few options. | | _Not_ having an installer improves "dev centrality" | (the few users who matter are the devs and other advanced | users), over and against user centrality. | | You could use the same thinking to argue against having a | package manager. You might have to install a package | manually anyway, so why bother providing packages at all? | d_tr wrote: | At the end of the day, as others have probably already | said in this thread, the maintainers are unpaid | volunteers and choose to focus on certain things for | their own reasons and using their finite resources. | | There are other distributions that focus on other things | and people can choose. If Arch chose to implement lots of | convenience functions, that choice could be to the | detriment of other strong aspects of the distribution. | girvo wrote: | ...which they chose to use to write an installer for Arch | after all, so I find your arguments against it somewhat | amusing. | d_tr wrote: | I am aware of the fact that they wrote an installer. I do | not think this invalidates my previous comment though. | arccy wrote: | also, keys: https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/list/arch- | dev-public@li... | sophacles wrote: | > Arch doesn't have an installer, and seems almost militantly | against providing one, or a lot of other little utilities that | could improve the user experience | | This just changed! The archinstall package is included on | install media now and is not considered experimental (according | to the wiki page history, that happened on 2022-07-08). | | https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/archinstall | Macha wrote: | Huh, it took a while for the wiki to be updated to reflect | that. The official announcement was on april 1st, 2021 (the | date was almost certainly a joke of how unexpected it was to | people now following its development, but the release was no | joke): https://archlinux.org/news/installation-medium-with- | installe... | rthomas6 wrote: | Welp, looks like I'm switching back from Manjaro for my next | Linux install. | boomfunky wrote: | I recently adopted Arch onto my laptop and didn't even | realize 'archinstall' wasn't always a thing. I looked up a | traditional Arch installation and think I might have skipped | it had the installer not been present when I was distro | hopping. | wooque wrote: | Arch has installer since April 2021 | https://archlinux.org/news/installation-medium-with-installe... | adamdusty wrote: | As a Linux noob i actually picked arch because it doesn't have | an installer. Just installing arch I learned a lot about how | computers work and how much is actually done by other operating | systems like windows. I just followed the installation article | in the wiki and didn't have any issues I couldn't solve. There | are plenty of nicer distros for people that just want to use | Linux. In my field of work RTFM is pretty standard so I don't | mind it in the arch community. | adastra22 wrote: | You should try Linux from Scratch. | coldpie wrote: | Seconded. It's a terrible end-user experience, but a | fascinating and extremely educational project for a | developer/sysadmin. | xfalcox wrote: | > I recently switched to an arch flavor because the AUR had a | lot of little small utilities that make life better on wayland. | | Same for me after more than a decade on Ubuntu. Switched to | Manjaro Sway so I could have a better life in Wayland. | collegeburner wrote: | i am in favor of gatekeeping out ppl who are completely | unwilling to go read the extremely helpful and well maintained | wiki. it helps maintain a better atmosphere and keeps the | forums clean(er) of the same 10 noob questions that everyone | asks without looking for prior responses. | RealStickman_ wrote: | > Updates seem to break for odd reasons. I had to uninstall | nodejs to be able to do a system update. Why? There should be | some sort of automated way to address this. | | That usually happens when a package depends on a specific | version of a dependency, with e newer (major) version in the | repo. | | It should only be an issue if you're using AUR packages or | other package management systems. Official packages are updated | for new dependencies afaik. | setuids wrote: | For the most part that does seem to be the case. Though I | have had problems with Qbittorrent and qt6 not playing nicely | unless i hold back qt6. Seems to be resolved now | maurodec wrote: | The thing is that it used to have an installer that was removed | at some point. It was a simple menu that just covered the | basics and would leave you with a working system withing | minutes. I don't know why it was ever removed. | pxeboot wrote: | There actually is an optional installer included with the | official installation media now [1]. | | [1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/archinstall | wing-_-nuts wrote: | This must be new, but it's definitely a step in the right | direction. | Macha wrote: | The previous installer was deprecated in 2012, so a 10 year | period of no installer. | benbristow wrote: | Quite a good video about it - | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtWWLN3wGNE | | Used it to create a dual boot on my main machine and works a | charm. | mkopec wrote: | Arch actually now has an installer script built into the | installation ISO. | z3t4 wrote: | Installers often get configured for the average user, and the | average user doesn't exist. Also remember to do a full system | backup before you upgrade! | [deleted] | meribold wrote: | I can provide some details regarding the times things did break | that I mentioned in the article. | | * In September 2014, X broke, and I created an | `/etc/X11/Xwrapper.config` file with the lines `allowed_users = | anybody` and `needs_root_rights = yes` to get it to work again. I | don't remember and don't have notes on why that helped. It sure | does sound like a pretty terrible hack. I don't have that | Xwrapper.config file anymore, and I also don't know when I | deleted it. | | * In June 2017, audio stopped working, but all I had to do was | add my user to the `audio` group. | | * In May 2018, X broke a second time. This time I downgraded the | `xorg-server-common` and `xorg-server` packages. A few weeks | later, I ran another system upgrade, and this one went fine. | | These weren't the only problems, but they were the most | disruptive. Generally, things like TrackPoint driver updates | changing how the cursor responds or Firefox changing its UI have | been far more annoying than Arch Linux issues :) | lifeeth_ wrote: | I am glad I am not the only one. I run have been running arch | on a "experiment" VPS for ~11 years now. Been `pacman -Syu` ing | every month :) | andrewstuart2 wrote: | I definitely had some rough edges with the pulseaudio, and then | pipewire, upgrades, and a few cases where almost everything | broke because in my infinite genius I had compiled my own | (insert dependency) for a bleeding edge feature, forgot to | revert when it made it to mainline, and then later down the | road a major version bump meant some `.so` was missing, and I | had to USB liveboot to fix it. | | I've also been on Arch for over a decade, and it's almost never | been broken, even when I was playing with some seriously | bleeding edge components. Almost always, it's been surprisingly | straightforward to un-screw the few screw-ups I've made. | codeflo wrote: | > Almost always, it's been surprisingly straightforward to | un-screw the few screw-ups I've made. | | That's been my experience as well. With Arch, everything is | exposed. There are usually no wrappers or layers of | abstraction or weird modifications added to the upstream | components it ships. That makes problems so much more | straightforward to troubleshoot and fix. | rocqua wrote: | I yearn for my arch days where 'ls /etc' only yielded | things I knew about. | | These days I am stuck with WSL, and that sadly does not | work with Arch. As far as I can tell the Arch community | does not want to support WSL because of philosophical | disagreement. | carlhjerpe wrote: | WSL2 should have no problems running arch at all. | | https://github.com/yuk7/ArchWSL | andrewstuart2 wrote: | Exactly. And having gone through the install process to the | point of a usable desktop, I learned a ton about what I'd | need later to fix the issues myself, quickly. And then when | everything just worked, much better than Ubuntu, I | installed Arch on a few other machines and got even more | practice. | | The learning curve may have been steep but it definitely | paid off in my understanding of how to maintain and fix | issues going forward. And just my understanding of Linux | overall. | grimgrin wrote: | So to recall the above, had you blogged about this, wrote in | your journal, or just queried your damn memory?? | meribold wrote: | I try to take a note whenever I fix some major issue with my | system. Querying my memory doesn't yield much; definitely not | specific dates :) | abrookewood wrote: | If only we could add some indexes ... | agumonkey wrote: | I had a similar life with arch. A handful of boot blocking | issues, let's say 5. 4 out of them were solved after joining | #arch on now-dead freenode and realizing this was explained on | arch main page. 1 of them was a deeper borkage that arch team | didn't catch early and required a bit of surgery. The problem | was gone in 5 minutes. | yjftsjthsd-h wrote: | You didn't get bitten by a painful glibc upgrade? It's been | long enough that I don't recall details, but I thought that was | a big one. | Macha wrote: | The biggest upgrade I remember on my similarly aged system | was initscripts -> systemd, and that had some steps to follow | but went off smoothly. | cycomanic wrote: | The glibc upgrade which was painful (and essentially required | recompiling everything) was much further back than 10 years. | I think I was running LFS at the time, but recall it was | painful for all distros. I don't think there was a glibc | upgrade that was disruptive since then. There was the | introduction of multi arch on Debian some years back which | caused a bit of disruption (I was running Debian unstable at | the time IIRC), but pretty much everything else has been very | minor since then. I've been running arch for 2 years or so | now, before I was running tumbleweed. I have to say that | rolling releases have been much less eventful in general than | release based distros (I administer my partners Ubuntu laptop | and lts upgrades are a bit more disruptive). | xorcist wrote: | The a.out -> ELF migration had some sharp edges, too, but | that was before Ubuntu and Arch. | LukeShu wrote: | In Arch, the glibc package upgrade associated with the | `/lib` + `/usr/lib` merge in 2012ish was painful. I assume | that's what the parent post was referring to. I assume | you're referring to the libc5-libc6 upgrade? | cycomanic wrote: | Yes I think you're correct libc5 to libc6 is the upgrade | I was talking about. I just had a look that's more than | 20 years ago. Funny how people still talk about "painful | libc upgrades". | Macha wrote: | Hmm, I remember UsrMerge being a non-event from a user | POV. The official instructions seem quite short too: | https://archlinux.org/news/the-lib-directory-becomes-a- | symli... | LukeShu wrote: | For many users it was a non-event; but if you missed that | news post, and didn't pass `--ignore glibc` to your | `-Syu`, then your system broke. And a sizable minority of | users missed the news post. (Shamefully, I was in that | minority.) | entropicdrifter wrote: | The current glibc version broke Easy AntiCheat support for | Proton games, but that's the only break of note in recent | memory, and it only affects people playing multiplayer | games on Linux, which is a minority (multiplayer gamers) of | a minority (Linux gamers) of a minority (Linux users). | WfAjWDYpDHDYCN5 wrote: | glibc updates have recently broken lots of Electron | software (and probably other stuff using similar | sandboxing), by using a new syscall (clone3? or | something) to implement some library methods. | | Pretty much every glibc update breaks _something_ , | honestly. | LukeShu wrote: | That breakage is because of the dumpster-fire that is | seccomp. Your seccomp policy (in this case, the one that | comes with Electron) whitelists syscalls, but which | syscalls glibc uses to implement things is considered an | implementation detail, not part of the contract. So | seccomp was designed in a way that makes it broken-by- | design with the most popular libc. | yjftsjthsd-h wrote: | > The glibc upgrade which was painful (and essentially | required recompiling everything) was much further back than | 10 years. | | Ah. I'm old. Somehow traumatic glibc upgrades were not how | I expected to find out. | panzagl wrote: | Glibc upgrades are how you become old. | LukeShu wrote: | I suspect you were thinking of an Arch Linux-specific | glibc upgrade related to Arch's `/lib`+`/usr/lib/` merge | in 2012ish, not a painful glibc-itself upgrade that other | distros would have noticed? | laumars wrote: | glibc and the file system update were both horrible updates | in Arch. | | The systemd transition was annoying as I liked Arch's unit | system but it was just an annoyance rather than breaking | change. | | Recently I ran into an issue were I had to revert to a LTS | kernel because the main kernel hangs during boot each time | (spent hours debugging and haven't found the culprit. But the | LTS kernel is working fine so I'm going to stick with that). | fonkyyack wrote: | I had the exact same problems you mentioned! | | Also, Nvidia gpu drivers are the worst (I was on Manjaro back | then) to seeif I could get rid of Windows for gaming purposes. | I used Linux for games for about 6 months and had to quit and | get back to Windows. | | I should retry now with all the steam deck fuss! | xvedejas wrote: | Proton is a game-changer, but Nvidia drivers remain the most | unstable thing on Arch. Find a version that works well with | your card, and avoid upgrading it, if at all possible. It's | performant, but I have games that crash once every few hours, | but only specifically on certain machines. | queuebert wrote: | This is true everywhere. I have some very expensive Lambda | Labs GPU blades, and even their Lambda-stacked Ubuntu | upgrades break CUDA stuff occasionally. I think Nvidia's | driver ecosystem is held together with chewing gum and duct | tape. | ensignavenger wrote: | Or get an AMD GPU, like what I did for my recent gaming PC. | WfAjWDYpDHDYCN5 wrote: | That's great! But what it doesn't say is what's actually | relevant: how much time you spent maintaining it in that period. | | Stuff being obviously/"disruptively" broken usually has an undue | amount of weight given to it, even though it generally (a) occurs | at a time the administrator has chosen and should be planned to | minimize the effects of any disruption (i.e. when you're doing | updates or potentially problematic config changes), and (b) | usually takes significantly less time to deal with, overall, than | regular maintenance (upgrades, config changes caused by them, | etc). | stop50 wrote: | I switched between arch and debian and the only real unstable | thing i encountered is KDE. even before i changed something my | whole desktop crashed. I had to login as root and kill my | usersession (as root so that every process that belongs to my | user is stopped). | jklinger410 wrote: | The issue isn't so much whether a person can keep an arch install | stable, it's whether arch is stable for most people, most of the | time. | | As modern hardware and DE choices change and conflict, arch has | to be manually tweaked to stay working. Those tweaks (aka config | choices) are essentially the entire purpose of a normal distro. | | Arch isn't designed to do the tweaks. It's just that simple. | | Saying you kept arch running is either a brag about how well you | manage it, how minimalist your environment is, or how simple your | hardware is. Not to mention whether your needs drive you to try | any of the edgier stuff. | | Congrats to this guy though. | vladev wrote: | I would say that Arch's philosophy is about Exposed simplicity | vs Hidden complexity. The wiki is extensive and covers a lot of | cases one might stumble upon. Sometimes it feels like Arch's | goal is to teach you how it works end-to-end. As a byproduct | you get a working OS. | dj_mc_merlin wrote: | The best thing about the rolling releases is that the OS feels | ageless. If I leave a Thinkpad sitting in a corner for 3 years | and boot it up again to pacman -Syu, it will have basically the | same software as my modern Thinkpad. This just tickles my sense | of "this is how the computer _should_ behave". | Bolkan wrote: | And all the data in your `~/.config`, `~/.cache` will still be | in the old format. Linux programs are notoriously bad at | handling that kind of things. There is no local data update api | like the one provided by android sdk. | dj_mc_merlin wrote: | Yes, that sucks. I'm not aware of any *nix besides Android | that handles that. Would love to be proved wrong. | WfAjWDYpDHDYCN5 wrote: | s/Linux // | | Windows isn't any better. I don't have enough Mac experience | but I doubt it has some magic bullet. | maxnoe wrote: | I would be very surprised if pacman -Syu worked after three | years of no upgrades. | | That's generally not supported and will require manual | interactions. | dj_mc_merlin wrote: | If you boot from USB to use an external pacman to upgrade you | can mitigate almost all of the common problems people have | with this. | jreese wrote: | I literally let my server sit without upgrades for almost | three years before realizing my autoupdater script had been | failing me. The biggest issue was needing to manually | download a statically linked version of pacman (found on the | arch forums) to support the new mirror/signing features. Once | the system pacman was upgraded, I just ran `pacman -Syu`, let | it spin for a while, and rebooted, and it just worked. | -\\_(tsu)_/- | JeremyNT wrote: | I routinely go over a year between updating some old crufty | systems - usually it's all just fine, excepting a need to | update the keyring first. | | Periodically, some upgrades of some packages do require | manual interaction when configured in certain ways. However, | this is usually a general issue with a change in packaging | which isn't actually any more onerous for systems that hadn't | been updated in a long time. | | Now, it's true that every once in a blue moon something | really big does change. The big one I remember was updating a | system that had been shut down for some years, and the | compression used by pacman had changed in the meantime. That | one did require some self-imposed manual intervention :) | WfAjWDYpDHDYCN5 wrote: | That's what I was thinking. Good luck getting all the random | crap you have installed to update without choking on EOL'd | packages, or various packages that have new config formats, | or changes to the updater itself, or apps which only support | version-at-a-time migrations (or otherwise don't include the | full history needed to migrate)... | jakswa wrote: | Broke for me after a month or so on one laptop. Had to stop | whatever I was doing and learn a bit how pacman and PGP keys | interact or something. | dj_mc_merlin wrote: | That's expected, you'll have to pacman -Sy archlinux- | keyring when a new developers key is added, which happens | every couple months or so. | idoubtit wrote: | I'm a happy user of another rolling release distribution: Debian | testing. It's on my desktop and a laptop for a decade (even more | for the desktop since I transferred the OS from my previous | desktop pc). | | I can't remember any problem during the upgrades of the recent | years. I often apply partial updates through `aptitude` on a | weekly basis, and full upgrades once in a while (maybe monthly). | There were some rough times long ago, but I think it was related | to the transition from initrc to systemd: for a major change like | this, it's would be surprising if a _testing_ release was | perfect. | | I don't think I ever had problems as acute as having no Xorg or | alsa. If several occurrences of this kind had occurred, I would | call my OS _unstable_. | otsaloma wrote: | Debian unstable running here since about 7 years. I tend to | reinstall when getting a new computer. Once I had X break and I | had to set "GDK_BACKEND=x11" and "XDG_SESSION_TYPE=x11" to fix | it. Something related to Wayland I guess. But I use startx | directly, no login manager, so probably not a common issue. | | Sometime more than five years ago, there was some trouble | always when a new version of GNOME trickled to unstable one | package at a time and having part of packages the old version | and part new caused a lot of small issues, like thumbnails not | working in Nautilus etc. | | I don't remember any other relevant issues. apt-listbugs helps | avoid a lot of issues. I use aptitude as package manager | (commands, not the menu UI) and often use "aptitude forbid- | version" to skip a bad version, not sure if apt-get or apt | these days provide something similar. apt-listchanges is nice | too, although I rarely see something relevant to me | specifically there. | flobosg wrote: | Another Debian testing user reporting in. I think I've | reinstalled once or twice in a decade. | nsomaru wrote: | I've been running Debian stable for about 10 years and | reinstalling every so often. How do you run a partial upgrade | on testing? Is it usable as a daily driver? | nortonham wrote: | I use sid/unstable, and like you I use aptitude, partially out | of habit. I used to use stable exclusively. About a year ago I | decided to try using sid permanently. I only ever had one issue | (couldn't login to a gui), but that was resolved during the | next update. It feels almost as stable as Debian stable, and I | see no reason to try out something like arch or manjaro. | goodpoint wrote: | Debian unstable is equally functional on desktops. 15 years | without having to reinstall. | vbernat wrote: | It's even better (to use unstable) since you don't have | disappearing packages, you have access to packages only in | unstable (Firefox instead of Firefox ESR), and you get timely | security update. | | 20 years ago, things may break a lot in unstable. But | nowadays, you just have to be careful to only use "apt | upgrade" and from time to time "apt full-upgrade" (and check | what is removed as it could remove everything). | vbernat wrote: | Another Debian unstable user. It's hard to remember the exact | installation date, but I have a `/var/log/firewalld.1` from Aug | 25 2002. So, 20 years soon! And it has been migrated from | 32-bit to 64-bit. | wooptoo wrote: | I've been using the same Archlinux install over the past 12 years | or so. Initially installed in 2006 (version 0.7 or so), I only | re-installed properly when I switched from 32-bit to 64-bit | packages, and from ReiserFS to Ext4 in the same step. Since then | I've been using the same install on my personal computer, and | just rsync-ed the files between hdds, laptops, etc. | | It's been pretty stable, had some hiccups a dodgy kernel once I | think. Can't remember what it was specifically. | | > zcat /var/log/pacman.log.1.gz-2018010214.backup | head -1 | | > [2009-02-23 18:14] installed filesystem (2009.01-1) | JLCarveth wrote: | > A few months ago, I copied my complete installation to a | ThinkPad X13 Gen 2 using rsync | | How would something like this work? Is the target laptop running | any random linux distro, and rsync replaces all system files etc. | effectively "swapping" operating systems? Can the laptop boot | into the new system as if it was installed normally? | pseudoramble wrote: | Interesting question. Only other ideas I can think of is they | pulled the drive out from the laptop to do the copy physically, | or they booted the laptop from a live distro and did the copy. | But those are simply guesses! | trebbble wrote: | Boot from external media (USB disk, cd or dvd if you're kicking | it old school, maybe even network) with no persistent storage | (ramdisk or whatever only). Mount the hard drive. Format. Rsync | the files over. | | That's pretty similar to what installation media does anyway, | really. | | [EDIT] Oh you might need to install the bootloader too. But you | can sort-of (your running kernel will still be the installation | media's) do that from the rsync'd system once it's copied over, | with some creative chrooting and mounting. Which, again, is | something that Linux installers kinda do anyway, in ordinary | operation, but you'd likely want to do it manually in this | case. It's exactly what you used to do (probably still do?) | installing Gentoo, even for a "stage 3" (least-painful) | installation. | traverseda wrote: | You boot into a live cd (probably the arch install disc) and | rsync on to a mounted partition, then you chroot into that | partition and re-install the bootloader. | | This is pretty much how you install archlinux normally, except | instead of rsync-ing the initial filesystem you make a new | initial filesystem based on the "filesystem" package. | | https://archlinux.org/packages/core/x86_64/filesystem/ | 5e92cb50239222b wrote: | I do that routinely. Boot from a liveUSB, rsync data from the | main system, fix the bootloader and a couple of configs like | /etc/fstab. Works like a charm every time. | foepys wrote: | I did exactly this a few times, too. | | My Arch is from 2007 or so and had only a few hiccups. The | last thing happened when MD5 was getting deprecated for | /etc/passwd and the automatic migration to another hash | algorithm was not working, which is obviously directly | related to the age of the installation. | | It is running on its third mainboard/CPU/GPU combo with maybe | the fifth HDD/SSD. | gspr wrote: | > I do that routinely. Boot from a liveUSB, rsync data from | the main system, fix the bootloader and a couple of configs | like /etc/fstab. Works like a charm every time. | | Just be careful if you intend to keep the old system running. | You probably don't want to clone /etc/machine-id and similar | (see: the problems that come with exactly cloning VMs). But | of course, if the old system is being destroyed, then no | worries. | qbasic_forever wrote: | Could be booted into a USB live CD and then manually mounted | the internal harddrive to rsync the new root filesystem. They | would need to make sure their boot partition is rebuilt/updated | too with the kernel if necessary. | csdvrx wrote: | > How would something like this work? | | Very well and very easily. You can do that even with Windows, | even with different CPUs: I've ported my master Windows install | from a Xeon to a regular Intel CPU on a laptop. | | This laptop still feels like downloading Xeon-specific updates | time to time, but every system peripheral is recognized in the | device manager, and everything has been working great for over | a year now. | | For my next laptop, I'll do just the same: use bitlocker | unlock, clone this Windows install into a larger SSD using | Linux NTFS tools, plug the new SSD into the new laptop. | sgtnoodle wrote: | There's really not very much magic involved. The root | filesystem is just a collection of directories and files. The | kernel is just a binary blob, usually stored in /boot. You | perhaps need an initial ramdisk tailored to your configuration, | but that's usually just running a script. The only really | arcane bit is bootloading the kernel. With modern x86 systems | EFI does it, and so you just need a correctly formatted fat32 | EFI partition. | meribold wrote: | I booted a live system from a USB thumb drive and then pulled | down a backup using rsync. After that, I adjusted my | `/etc/fstab`, `chroot`ed into the new (old) system, ran | `mkinitcpio -P`, and generated a new GRUB configuration file. | prettyWise wrote: | I would boot from a live disk image, mount the built in hard | disk, and then rsync the files to it from there and reboot I | think. | malermeister wrote: | I'm gonna guess you rsync onto a separate partition and then | get rid of the "host" partition once you're done instead of | replacing stuff on the fly. | wooque wrote: | >my experience doesn't match the common notion that Arch Linux is | unstable | | Arch is unstable, as in, package versions constantly change and | can (will) introduce bugs and regressions. Debian is considered | stable because apart from security updates package versions are | set in stone til the next release, so there won't be any | surprises. | | This is stable/unstable difference, that doesn't mean that you | can't break your OS and have to reinstall in either Debian or | Arch. | jcelerier wrote: | > Debian is considered stable because apart from security | updates package versions are set in stone til the next release, | so there won't be any surprises. | | which is not what the rest of the world means by "stable" when | talking about software, so there is in practice a lot of | surprise for users coming to Debian when they hear "stable" | thinking that it means "no bugs" when it actually means "no | changes" | wooque wrote: | stable, by dictionary definition, means "not changing or | fluctuating", no bugs would be "bug free", there is no "bug | free" distro. | jcelerier wrote: | it's a problem of scale: it can mean "changing or | fluctuating" as in, the software itself won't change over, | say, a time scale of months (what Debian means), OR | "changing or fluctuating" in the sense that a stable chair | does not fluctuates, breaks or tips over when you sit on | it, e.g. at the time scale of an human interaction. I'd | wager than people mean the latter in general with the word | "stable". | pessimizer wrote: | But if they think that they can have the second definiton | without the first, they're fooling themselves. The reason | Debian Stable is both kinds of stable is because they | test forever, eventually put the most finely tested | software into a release, then keep working on fixing any | bugs in that release until the next one. | | edit: your new, experimental chair just released | yesterday may be stable enough to sit on, but it's | nothing to bet on. | jcelerier wrote: | > The reason Debian Stable is both kinds of stable | | I stop you right there - I ran debian stable for years. | Arch Linux has been so much more "stable" in terms of | "less bugs and issues" for daily use it's not even funny | gspr wrote: | > which is not what the rest of the world means by "stable" | when talking about software | | But it is what the rest of the world means by "stable" in | lots of ways: a stable climate, a stable government, a stable | relationship, a stable heading. I don't think it's far- | fetched for Debian to use it in that meaning about software | as well. | singron wrote: | I was wondering why their system didn't break with the migration | to systemd, but it's possible that their system is new enough | that it started on systemd. That one was huge pain if I remember | correctly. I think I needed to rescue with a bootable usb. | xbpx wrote: | Hey cheers, I bet I'm around a decade on the same install of Arch | too. That spans 3 machines. The trick for me is hot swap backups. | I do an rsync backup of the drive to an identical disk (nowadays | a 1TB 980 Evo) and then immediately swap the backup drive to the | main drive. I have little helper scripts to format drives, do | backups and automatically update fstab and the boot config. So | new machine no problem, rsync the files into it and boot it up | and I have everything exactly as it should be. | | Now and again I'll do some package spelunking (pacman makes this | straightforward) and clean out cobwebs. Next on my list is my | emacs config which is like 15 years old and a couple generations | out of date. I wouldn't care but startup times are slowing down | and there is a lot of great ideas and packages to solve this | problem. Just need the time, it's a few hours here and there, but | easily enough to keep Arch going forever! | abalashov wrote: | I used the same Arch Linux installation from early 2016 until | summer 2021, and had a very similar experience to the author's. | | There was a significant initial setup investment, by modern | standards, although not by historical ones; I had used Linux on | the desktop continuously since I was a child, around 1997 (I | think I started with RedHat 4.0 and kernel 2.0.29), so I remember | all initial setup to be fairly burdensome in the late 1990s and | early 2000s. Arch seemed a throwback to that. This is not a | criticism, to be clear. I was very aware that this was part of | the Arch philosophy, and I embraced that in my switch from | Ubuntu. | | However, once that was done, very little of interest happened | over the next half decade. It's not that nothing ever broke, | ever, but the rate of breakage was impressively low, and much | lower than I had the previous 7 years on Ubuntu, or desktop | Debian beforehand. Arch Linux was eminently stable. | | In 2021, I switched to Mac/OSX -- the last of my social group of | techies to do so, late to the party by a decade or so. While this | has some advantages, my work kinetics will never come close to | the raw efficiency and speed of my Arch Linux + i3wm setup. | clircle wrote: | Operating systems are not unstable. Users are unstable. | encryptluks2 wrote: | Windows had multiple issues. I recall multiple times having to | basically do a reinstall after installing some update. | yjftsjthsd-h wrote: | Of course OSs are unstable, in two senses: First, some OSs, | somewhat dependent on hardware and software in play, just tend | to crash. Second, OSs can be unstable in the sense of changing | things; users are, in this sense, actually supremely stable and | tend to be quite unhappy when the system decides one day to | move menus around, rename programs, change shortcuts, shift | around config files, require manual intervention for updates to | work, etc. It is this second sense in which Arch _tends_ to be | less stable, and distros like Debian and RHEL are extremely | stable. | sophacles wrote: | I see you never used windows 95. | bengalister wrote: | I ran Archlinux with LTS kernel on my home laptop for 1.5 years | and I stopped because of instabilities. The last issue that I had | was the update to pipewire, my bluetooth headset stopped working | after suspend. I got fed up of tweaking configuration to make it | work. I could have reverted to pulseaudio. | | But to be honest, the only major issue was an issue with pam | login. I could not log in anymore after an update, had to search | on the internet to find a workaround that consisted in updating a | pamd.conf file in single user mode boot. Many breaking updates | were Gnome related... | | Switched back to Windows 10 then 11 for a year, tried WSL2 and | found it unstable (some random crashes and tmux freezes), and | slow sometimes. | | Now on Fedora for a few months since I am a Gnome user, I am | surprised there are quite frequent kernel updates also. I am | little bit less worried that an update will break something, but | i'll slowly move away from the bleeding edge. | twblalock wrote: | Now try to replicate that Arch setup on another PC. Even if you | started from the exact same install, would it turn out the same? | | I'd really like to see something like a rolling release take on | Fedora Silverblue. Rolling release with versioning/immutability | and easy rollbacks. | atleta wrote: | I've had that with a Debian desktop (for over a decade). My | current OS on my laptop is Ubuntu, which I also installed a | decade ago. Though something went really wrong with an upgrade | about 5 years ago, so I had to reinstall. (Keeping all the data, | of course.) | | The only problem (with both debian and ubuntu) is that these old | installs tend to drift from what a fresh install would be. And | that the GNOME guys keep removing features I use with every | release and then it takes a few months (sometimes a year) until | someone adds it back as an extension (which will be broken with | the next release, for sure). | krzyk wrote: | I have it with Debian testing/unstable on my laptop, I think it | has about 15 years now. Most stable system. I have also Ubuntu | laptop from work, freezes constantly. | | I switched laptops 3 or 4 times and HDD to ssd and another | bigger sad with copying while system and just enlarging | partitions. | | The only issue I have right now is lack of legacy boot on newer | laptops, not sure how to UEFI my disk. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-08-16 23:00 UTC)