And of course I’m installing Linux on it. Install went well, even the fingerprint sensor built in to the laptop works.
Mostly this will be a school and DND machine but always nice to have a functional laptop for whatever else I may need it for.
And of course I’m installing Linux on it. Install went well, even the fingerprint sensor built in to the laptop works.
Mostly this will be a school and DND machine but always nice to have a functional laptop for whatever else I may need it for.
The whole point of a bleeding-edge and rolling-release distro is that you get the lastest packages available. If you wait longer for the buggy updates to get fixed, then it doesn’t make it any different from Mint and other stable distros. It might even be worse because even if you wait, every update would still include a package that may be buggy because of the nature of rolling releases.
That’s you projecting. I didn’t choose Arch because of that. I chose Arch because I got to decide what to install on my system, from basically nothing. I get to choose how lean or thicc my system is. That was my motivation. And pacman just seemed like such a sensible package manager after reading its manual. 😙👌
Sometimes I don’t upgrade my system for more than a week, e.g. during vacation when I’m not by my computer much. Still, no issues. You can upgrade as much as you want. You decide, just like you can decide not to upgrade to the latest point release from Debian if you don’t want to.
Not projecting, that is quite literally one of the features of a rolling release distro. I have used Arch and Antergos (rip) myself. If your reason for choosing Arch is that you get to pick and choose what you only want to install, then there are other non-rolling release distros that offer that too, and Arch isn’t any different from them from that perspective.
And we’re also talking about stability which the original OP was talking about. If you want to set up your system with only the packages you need and only want to update it with the same cadence as a non-bleeding edge distro, then you’re better off with the latter because it’s the same thing with a lower risk of getting buggy packages.
As for pacman, then yeah I can agree that it’s a good reason to use Arch simply because you like the package manager. But that’s not what we’re talking about here.
It’s one of the features, yes, but you can’t tell me what my point for choosing Arch is, as you did in the other reply. I decide that point. Not you, not even Arch. I chose Arch for its other features, which is my prerogative, since it’s free.
This is your argument that you brought up, that the “whole point” of a rolling release system is to have the latest software. I agree that “the point of a rolling release” is “to have the latest software”. But the rolling release thing is just a bonus for me, and it’s not why I chose Arch, so that argument doesn’t work in my case. It isn’t the only feature of the system.
Well I had to bring it up because it was to show you that I don’t use Arch for its rolling release feature. 🤷♂️ People just have different reasons for choosing a distro. And thus, you can choose 👏 your 👏 own 👏 upgrading 👏 frequency 👏. That is my point. You are free to do as you wish. Nobody is holding a gun to your head telling you to run a cron job of pacman every five minutes.