293
Realizing Arch isn't for me after updating broke VLC
(lemmy.sdf.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2025
293 points (100.0% liked)
Linux
56988 readers
986 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
arch is for people who want to play linux. if you actually want to use linux, go with something else
I use the same arch install for 10 years on my home server, and its really solid.
it is
...if you're willing to put in the effort to play linux
What does this even mean? I had more problems with Fedora on my Notebook in the last few months (wouldn't randomly boot anymore?!) than I had with Arch Linux in 10 years.
i believe you. also, my great uncle has smoked since he was 13 and he's now 86 and is still alive
seriously, though, if you do everything right, arch is a great system. it is really well put together and very stable all things considered. the problem is the "doing everything right" part. what happened to op is pretty common if you stop reviewing your updates one by one for a week or two. if you're used to that, then arch is perfect. otherwise, it's a chore
This is just not true. Its pretty rare that you have to manually intervene when updating.
that's a little besides the point. my point is that you have to always be ready, even if an actual intervention event takes a while to happen. you're used to it and/or got lucky, but the op is not the first person i see having issues like this and getting blamed for them because they should know better
Same, my desktop PC had Arch installed in 2012 lol
I enjoyed getting to pick out a lot of the small details by choosing what was going on my system. Something about having the minimum amount needed to meet my needs eases a variety of my computing related anxieties.
I've always managed to solve issues I've encountered but reading that forum post made me realize I may have been attributing issues from updates to Linux in general instead of my distro choice.
yeah, it is pretty fun, i used arch for a long time years ago and i liked it. but it's a huge commitment and you can't ever forget the system exists (which sometimes you need to do if you have a life)
funny and glib, but not true
arch only works if you think maintaining every detail of a linux system is fun, because you have to constantly know what you're doing and that's a huge commitment. stuff like what the op described is bound to happen if you ever get bored of it and decide not to pay much attention to the system one particular week
i really don't think that's true about arch, but in general i get that there is a spectrum of how much ppl want to be active in the maintenance of their computer.
i use EndeavourOS, but for my wife i give her Kalpa, which is atomic and much more "less fuss, just use computer."
maybe @makeitwonderful@lemmy.sdf.org would like an immutable distro.