so a common claim I see made is that arch is up to date than Debian but harder to maintain and easier to break. Is there a good sort of middle ground distro between the reliability of Debian and the up-to-date packages of arch?
For private use? Hot take, but Arch. It’s easy to maintain and not easy to break at all. I think I spend zero time on maintenance other than running package updates. I only reinstall when I get a new computer.
(I say for private use only because you’ll be getting weird looks from people if you use arch on a server in a professional setting, and it might break if you try to update it after five years of not doing it since there aren’t any “releases” to group big changes - in practice I run arch on my home server too with no issues)
Save yourself some trouble and run something for servers. You can even setup automatic updates with reboots so you can set it up and forget. I did that with a Debian machine and I forgot about it for a terrifyingly long time. It just auto updated and patched itself when new updates hit.
Arch is not harder to maintain nor is it easier to break, that’s a myth. If anything, it’s the opposite, as a rolling release stays up to date, though it relies on the user keeping it up to date. If you get lazy with updates, then yes, you are going to have problems eventually.
I hate when people insist that Arch isn’t easier to break. There was an incident a couple of years ago where a Grub update was rolled out that required that grub-mkconfig be re-run manually, and if you failed to do this the system would brick and you’d need to fix it in a recovery environment. This happened to my laptop while I was on vacation, and while I had luckily had the foresight to bring a flash drive full of ISOs, it was a real pain to fix.
Yes, Arch offers a lot more stability than people give it credit for, but it’s still less reliable than the popular point-release distros like Fedora or Ubuntu, and there’s not really any way around that with a rolling-release model. As someone who is at a point in life where I don’t always have the time nor energy to deal with random breakage (however infrequently), having the extra peace of mind is nice.
And I hate when people take a single case and extrapolate it as a general statement.
By that argument Ubuntu is equally unstable as they have rolled out updates that broke grub resulting in unbootable systems - not during a full distro upgrade, but as Ubuntu specific patches to LTS.
In the end, we have choice, and choice is a good thing.
The fact remains that Arch generally requires more work to maintain an installation than a typical point-release distro. I’m speaking from experience - I had two systems running Arch for over 2 years. I switched away when each system separately had a pacman update somehow get interrupted resulting in a borked install. I was using Mint before and Fedora now, and both are a lot more hands-off at the cost of some flexibility.
Also, just to be clear, I’m not trying to disparage Arch at all. I think it’s a really cool distro that’s perfect for a certain type of user; I just don’t think it’s great to lead people to believe it’s more reliable than it is in the way that I’ve been seeing online for a while now.
Arch is easy to maintain and is stable enough. Of course you can make Arch unstable if you do greedy stuff, but if you use like a normal person, it will be fine
It’s using Arch for 5 years now and I never broke my system, for example
Arch lacks consistency as they are constantly pushing the latest versions of everything. If you want that then that is fine but calling is stable is not really arcuate. They entire system is changing and updates are pushed weekly. You also can’t setup automatic updates safely.
I called it “stable enough”. For a home user, it’s stable enough. It’s a myth that Arch will break every update or it is unstable. Arch is as unstable or stable as you make it be.
You also can’t setup automatic updates safely
That’s partially true. If you’re trying to run a server, yeah, don’t set any automatic update. If you’re home user, you may do it and you’ll be fine, but be aware of your system.
It is updated almost everyday. That doesn’t seem very stable as it is constantly changing
This. (although I follow the directions here, which is a little more than apt install). The only thing I couldn’t get on Debian stable is the latest gnome. But when I tried debian testing, it was slightly broken anyway. And gnome extensions could get most of the functionality missing in my older gnome version. Debian stable + flatpak + anaconda + adding repositories (like for firefox) is a perfect compromise.
What’s nice about a stable distro is you can update the things you want to update, and your OS isn’t constantly changing a million packages a week that you don’t even know the function of.
Manjaro has been specifically designed to have fresh packages (sourced from Arch) but to be user friendly, long term stable, and provide as many features as possible out of the box.
It requires some compromises in order to achieve this, in particular it wants you to stick to its curated package repo and a LTS kernel and use it’s helper apps (package/kernel/driver manager) and update periodically. It won’t remain stable if you tinker with it.
You’ll get packages slower than Arch (depending on complexity, Plasma 6 took about two months, typically it’s about two weeks) but faster than Debian stable.
I’m running it as my main driver for gaming and work for about 5 years now and it’s been exactly what I wanted, a balanced mix of rolling and stable distro.
I’ve also given it to family members who are not computer savvy and it’s been basically zero maintenance on my part.
If it has one downside is that you really have to leave it alone to do its thing. In that regard it takes a special category of user to enjoy it — you have to either be an experienced user who knows to leave it alone or a very basic user who doesn’t know how to mess with it. The kind of enthusiastic Linux user who wants to tinker will make it fall apart and hate it, and they’d be happier on Arch or some of the other distros mentioned here.
or you could use a distro made by competent people and that actually serves the purpose Manjaro claims to have.
You really shouldn’t go for Arch & derivatives if you don’t want to fiddle with your system (the whole point of Arch & co) and really want stability (not that arch is that unstable tbh as long as you manage it proprely). Manjaro included. In fact especially manjaro since it manages to be less stable than Arch specifically because of their update policy. I mean why even be on Arch if you can’t use the AUR and have the latest packages?
Aside from this and maybe a few others there isn’t really a wrong distro to choose, better alternatives would be NixOS (stable), Fedora, Debian testing and probably several other distros that you probably should avoid for being one-man projects or stuff.
There is no other Arch-based distro that strives to achieve a “rolling-stable” release.
Alternatives like Fedora have already been mentioned by other comments.
Debian testing is not a rolling release. Its package update strategy is focused on becoming the next stable so the frequency ebbs and flows around stable’s release cycle.
manjaro since it manages to be less stable than Arch specifically because of their update policy
This is false. Their delayed updates mitigate issues in latest packages. Plasma 6 was released late but it was a lot more usable, for example.
I mean why even be on Arch if you can’t use the AUR and have the latest packages?
Anybody who wants Arch should use Arch. Manjaro is not Arch.
Some of us don’t want the latest packages the instant they release, we’re fine with having them a week or a month late if it means extra stability.
There’s nothing magical about what Manjaro is doing, it stands to reason that if you delay packages even a little some bugs will be fixed.
Also you can use AUR on Manjaro perfectly fine, I myself have over 100 AUR packages installed. But AUR is not supported even by Arch so it’s impossible to offer any guarantees for it.
There’s also Flatpak and some people may prefer that since it’s more reliable.
that’s because you can’t have both. It’ arch or it’s very stable. Granted Arch by itself is not that unstable if you manage it well and know what you’re doing but we’re talking hardly ever having to troubleshoot something.
Manjaro doesn’t acieve any more stability than Arch, and in fact is actually worse than arch.
Debian testing is a rolling.
Manjaro is an arch derivative and has the bad parts of arch still. Again, why recommend manjaro when you have better alternatives that actually achieve what manjaro sets itself out to be? Fedora had KDE plasma 6 sooner than Manjaro afaik and it managed to be stable, it is a semi-rolling with up to date yet stable packages etc, same for OpenSUSE Tumbleweed. Manjaro has no purpose, it’s half-assed at being arch and it’s half-assed at being stable.
AUR isn’t a problem in Manjaro because of lack of support, it’s a problem because packages there are made with Arch and 99.999% of its derivatives in mind, aka latest packages not one week old still-broken packages. Also Manjaro literally accidentally DDoSes the AUR every now and then because again they’re incompetent.
And if you’re going to be using Flatpaks then all the more reason to not bother using Manjaro or any arch derivative and just use an actually stable distro with flatpaks.
