317
And Debian is supposed to be the stable one
(lemmy.ca)
Hint: :q!
Sister communities:
Community rules (click to expand)
1. Follow the site-wide rules
sudo
in Windows.Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
Important: never execute code or follow advice that you don't understand or can't verify, especially here. The word of the day is credibility. This is a meme community -- even the most helpful comments might just be shitposts that can damage your system. Be aware, be smart, don't fork-bomb your computer.
People keep arguing about this or that distro.
Linux distributions are just a collection of software, initial settings, and sometimes online repository.
Are you trying to imply that all distributions are actually the same because of that? Because Debian's repositories and philosophies are definitely extremely different than something like Arch.
Not at all. I'm arguing that often, the issues, and fixes, are not distribution-dependant. Which is a good thing; it means we can go to arch forum and find fixes that can be applied in other distros most of the time, for example.
But people keep pitting them against each other like they're some form of evolved lifeforms that necessarily have to erase others, when a lot of the issues are just generic software issues.
And, since this is already a justification post I'll take the lead and note that it does not mean that there is no distribution-specific issues. Of course there are. The point is that most software issue in distribution X will have the same cause and fix in distribution Y, and often have nothing to do with either specific distributions.
Fair, I retract my sass!
Yeah, the difference in distributions is that even though there's a fix on the Arch wiki that solves the Debian issue, Debian shouldn't have released the update in the first place.