• Badabinski@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    7 hours ago

    I mean, just use any stable distro and you can live that life. Arch is good for its own reasons precisely because it’s this way.

      • psycotica0@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Yeah I mean, this is the benefit of the fragmentation. If you don’t want to update all the time, you just use a different distro. I know I do, I’ve run Linux for 21 years now and never once run Arch because I don’t want what it does, but we’re still on the same team, and the things they do benefit me nonetheless. There are drawbacks to the fragmentation, but this is one of the benefits.

      • luluberlue@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Well… it is a feature… we are talking about Arch here, a bleeding edge distro meant to be continuously updated.

        Want to update once every couple of decades? Go pick something stable like Debian (also Linux BTW).

      • mack123@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 hours ago

        As a rescent convert coming from Ubuntu to cachy os, the update cadence of an arch ibased distro, is something to get used to. It is also one of the main reasons behind experimenting with it. I am.using ubutntu and debian for work related workloads, where stabiloty is more important than having.the latest software. For personal use and playing around, cachy has been awesome. You control your own cadence.with updates. I am doing weekly at the moment, or whenever I need some new piece of software.

      • bus_factor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Funny because it’s true? If you want updates all the time, install Arch. If you want as few updates as possible, pick some LTS distro.