Post #4621194 · Elektrine

@Creat@discuss.tchncs.de

2026-09-04 23:23 UTC

Compare the other extreme Debian, which is very stable. In the sense that is unchanging, sure. But that’s one hell of a bad word to describe that in this context. In my experience the incompatibilities caused by only ancient versions of things available in the repo of even a newly released Debian are not helpful. Stable wouldn’t be the word I choose to describe the situation, or the fiddling and tinkering that results from that. Often having to go outside of the repo to solve, defeating the whole point of said repo. Arch in my limited experience is much more stable, in the sense of “just works” and always having up to date software. If I want to use something, I can just install it (from the repo), the chance of it not being the current release are slim.

Replies (3)

@thingsiplay@lemmy.ml 2026-09-04 23:31

The word stable for describing unchanged is a common way of doing so. Especially to differentiate them from their development or experimental versions. That contributes to confusion and disagreements with the other meaning of the word. Unfortunately this word is common usage in both cases. In example Archlinux as a rolling release is unstable by definition. It does not mean its unstable in sense of issues, however depending on the user and use case it can be unstable a lot (or stable a lot).

Open ##4621212
@atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 2026-09-05 01:23

It’s the way that word has been used for over 20 years.

Open ##4621566
@mlfh@lm.mlfh.org 2026-09-05 06:00

You’re coming into a discussion about two different linux release models misunderstanding both their established terminology and their purposes, and then claiming one of them is “bad” because you tried to use Debian in a way it wasn’t intended to be used.

Open ##4622184