most stable
How the hell is arch more stable than Debian?
In my experience they’re the same from a reliability standpoint. Stuff on Arch will break for no reason after an update. Stuff on Debian will break for no reason after an update. It’s just as difficult to solve reliability problems on both.
Because Debian isn’t a rolling release you will often run into issues where a bug got fixed in a future version of whatever program it is but not the one that’s available in the repository. Try using yt-dlp on any stable Debian installation and it won’t work for example.
Arch isn’t without its issues. Half of the good stuff is on the AUR, and fuck the AUR. Stuff only installs without issues half the time. Good luck installing stuff that needs like 13+ other AUR packages as dependencies because non of that shit can be installed automatically. On other distros,all that stuff can be installed automatically and easily with a single command.
I use Arch btw.
I heard this so many times that I really believed arch was so brittle that my system would become unbootable if I went on vacation. Turns out updating it after 6 months went perfectly fine.
Stuff on Debian will break for no reason after an update
I have never had this happen on Debian servers and I’ve been using it for around 20 years. The only time I broke a Debian system was my fault - I tried to upgrade an old server from Debian 10 to 12. It’s only supported to upgrade one version at a time. Had to restore from backup and upgrade to Debian 11 first, then to 12.
I have never had anything break on Debian. It has been running for years on attended upgrades
It literally does though. Stable doesn’t mean bug free. It means unchanging. That’s what the term “stable distro” actually means. That the software isn’t being updated except for security patches. When people say stable distro, that is what they are trying to communicate. That means the software will be old. That’s what stable actually means.
i think it’s a matter of perspective. if i’m deploying some containers or servers on a system that has well defined dependencies then i think Debian wins in a stability argument.
for me, i’m installing a bunch of experimental or bleeding edge stuff that is hard to manage in even a non LTS Debian system. i don’t need my CUDA drivers to be battle tested, and i don’t want to add a bunch of sketchy links to APT because i want to install a nightly version of neovim with my package manager. Arch makes that stuff simple, reliable, and stable, at least in comparison.
“Stable” doesn’t mean “doesn’t crash”, it means “low frequency of changes”. Debian only makes changing updates every few years, and you can wait a few more years before even taking those changes without losing security support while Arch makes changing updates pretty much every time a package you have installed does.
In no way is Arch more stable than Debian (other than maybe Debian Unstable/Sid, but even then it’s likely a bit of a wash)
what even is xz?
Very common compression utility for LZMA (.xz file)
Similar to .gzip, .zip, etc.
There are no known reports of those versions being incorporated into any production releases for major Linux distributions, but both Red Hat and Debian reported that recently published beta releases used at least one of the backdoored versions […] A stable release of Arch Linux is also affected. That distribution, however, isn’t used in production systems.
Ouch
I think the confusion comes from the meaning of stable. In software there are two relevant meanings:
-
Unchanging, or changing the least possible amount.
-
Not crashing / requiring intervention to keep running.
Debian, for example, focuses on #1, with the assumption that #2 will follow. And it generally does, until you have to update and the changes are truly massive and the upgrade is brittle, or you have to run software with newer requirements and your hacks to get it working are brittle.
Arch, for example, instead focuses on the second definition, by attempting to ensure that every change, while frequent, is small, with a handful of notable exceptions.
Honestly, both strategies work well. I’ve had debian systems running for 15 years and Arch systems running for 12+ years (and that limitation is really only due to the system I run Arch on, rather than their update strategy.
It really depends on the user’s needs and maintenance frequency.
- Not crashing / requiring intervention to keep running.
The word you’re looking for is reliability, not stability.
It is not entirely clear either this exploit can affect other parts of the system. This is one those things you need to take extremely seriously
In the case of Arch the backdoor also wasn’t inserted into liblzma at all, because at build time there was a check to see if it’s being built on a deb or rpm based system, and only inserts it in those two cases.
See https://gist.github.com/thesamesam/223949d5a074ebc3dce9ee78baad9e27 for an analysis of the situation.
So even if Arch built their xz binaries off the backdoored tarball, it was never actually vulnerable.
It has the freshest packages, ahead of all distros
Let me introduce you to Nixpkgs. Its packages are “fresher” than Arch’s by a large margin. Even on stable channels.
