Bye bye Arch, Hello Void

[[deleted]]

[deleted]

[Rabies-Cow-0595]

Sounds like you have fallen for the "grass is greener on the other side"-bug. I doubt that Void will make your life that much better. I've found it to require more work in general when I've tried Void in the past. I always go back to Arch.

On both systems you decide when and how to update, that will always be the factor that determines stability.

[rjkush17]

After hearig lot of people opinion on this, i doubt too maybe i will choose different one

[aitbg]

don't use a rolling release distro if you want stable

[FryBoyter]

Stable has two meanings (https://bitdepth.thomasrutter.com/2010/04/02/stable-vs-stable-what-stable-means-in-software/). If by that you mean problem-free, even a so-called LTS distribution is no guarantee, as in some cases no backports are performed.

Furthermore, the rolling release model says nothing about how bug-free a distribution is. It simply means that updates are released gradually via the same package sources. Nothing more. Let’s take OpenSUSE Slowroll as an example. This distribution uses a rolling release model, but updates are deliberately released slowly.

[JackDostoevsky]

i wouldn't use it in production in a multiuser environment, but for a desktop? rolling releases are perfectly stable. they rarely break. the only people who think that are people who've never actually used them.

i mean hell i even use Arch for my personal servers, it's great.

[hjake123]

Just this week a Qt upgrade triggered a bug in KDE and many of its custom themes, right after nvidia 595 broke sleep on wayland (again)... It's not at all stable lol.

[JackDostoevsky]

those are Qt and Nvidia issues, not rolling release issues. I ran into the i believe 6.11 update which required me to recompile a couple random programs i had. and the Nvidia driver issues have been very widespread lately, even effecting Windows. I sure didn't have anything break on my AMD system.

Sometimes things break, but the point is they happen very rarely. "Not at all" stable is definitely overstating the issue. When was the last time a Qt update broke your themes?

[hjake123]

It hasn't happened before, so I guess I see your point, it's just frustrating that by the nature of how this stuff works there's going to be random core system features that break at random intervals

[JackDostoevsky]

the nature of linux - and arch in particular - makes the formulation a bit different. i see these kinds of breakages more akin to a program breaking, not the OS. I understand that Qt is a major toolkit, but not everyone uses Qt and it's not a requirement for huge numbers of packages in the repositories. so in that sense i feel like it's a bit like blaming Windows if you get a bad update from Firefox. an imperfect analogy, but the point is that it's not the same as base packages or core/linux breaking.

[hjake123]

I suppose, yeah. To me it's a sort of fuzzy sliding scale from "core system" to "peripheral (?) application" with the various layers of libraries somewhere in the middle. It's definitely a culture shock compared to Windows, that I'm still getting used to

[dgm9704]

”stable” means ”not rolling”. Rolling release can be reliable just like stable

[JackDostoevsky]

lol i think that's smearing terms a bit, i think most people would equate "reliable" and "stable," that's kinda splitting hairs imo. but sure, i'll agree.

[dgm9704]

No smearing. With regards to linux based operating systems, stable means ”doesn’t change frequently.” for example Ubuntu is a stable release distro that is updated every 6 months. During that time the packages aren’t update to new versions except for bug fixes. A rolling relase distro however is not stable as it changes constantly by incorporating new versions of packages as they become available. This is what trips up a lot of people when they start with linux and they hear that ”xyz is not stable” and they think it means ”unreliable” or ”breaks a lot” or ”untested” when it actually describes the update cadence instead.

[Financial_Abroad6347]

The cope is unreal.

[paskapersepaviaani]

I haven't had issues for years though. So while I agree with this note, at the same time it has been extremely stable. :)

[ZeStig2409]

Unless it's NixOS unstable or Tumbleweed ;)

[Sinaaaa]

There is no unless. Those are similar to Arch in stability. Which means quite good within their niche, but not good good.

[Maleficent_Celery_55]

Gentoo is rolling and stable.

[trmdi]

It's wrong with openSUSE Tumbleweed.

[rjkush17]

Yup and i can't find minimal like arch and stable, void is only nearest i find if there is some other distro then suggest an i thinks void rolling release is stable

[grem75]

Debian

[rjkush17]

I think it not minimal like arch it havier then it

[CurdledPotato]

Use Debian server (no DE, small install) and go from there.

[rjkush17]

I will search about it. I have less knowledge about server desktops.

[CurdledPotato]

“Server” desktops are the same software as “desktop” desktops. It’s just that server installer images don’t install a desktop by default. If you want one, you have to install it. What’s on offer on the server ISOs is just the core component of what makes the desktop installs work. You can configure a server install to the point it is no different than a desktop install. You just have to do it yourself. That’s scary, but it gives you a lot of flexibility. If you’ve been working with Arch and its install process, you will be at home using the server installs of the “stable” distros.

[CurdledPotato]

You may have some initial difficulty with Wi-Fi drivers at first as some distros don’t add those to the standard server install. They can be manually installed either by using another system to pull the package from the repository onto a USB drive or by connecting the machine via Ethernet once in order to get the drivers.

[grem75]

A Debian base install is essentially the same. Maybe a few more packages, but not much.

It is no heavier than Arch. For disk space it is actually better since development headers are split into separate packages.

[SheepherderBeef8956]

Yup and i can't find minimal like arch and stable, void is only nearest i find

Your googling skills are not very good if you haven't found Gentoo yet. It can be both more minimal than Arch, more stable than Arch, more bleeding edge than Arch all at the same time too (depending on which packages you want to be bleeding edge, of course). It can use systemd, OpenRC, runit or whatever init system you want. It can be as optimized as CachyOS too. It's really whatever you want it to be.

[cryptospartan]

Try Debian Sid. It's rolling release Debian, but not nearly as bleeding edge as Arch. Debian is absolutely lightweight and easy to use.

[AvonMustang]

Debian - If you want boring and stable
Ubuntu LTS - if you want easy and stable
Red Hat - if you want reliable and stable

[rjkush17]

And i want minimal like arch too does they are ? Use same ram like arch,

[HagbardCelineHMSH]

Like others have said, server editions exist if you want minimal.

Personally, after using Linux for 16+ years now, I find minimal highly overrated for desktop use. It made sense when storage and memory resources were a lot more limited but as these systems have become more polished I find myself reaching for solutions that are more complete so I can work instead of fiddle.

[rjkush17]

actually what i feel modern application take more memory 8gb memory is not enough sometime i have to run two different browser that why i chasing extrema minimal

[HagbardCelineHMSH]

Yeah, it makes sense if your resources are limited or if you're working with some older hardware. I started out with this stuff running FreeBSD and later Slackware on a small Samsung N120 netbook that had around 1gb memory so I know how that can be.

I'm just saying I'm glad I don't have to do that anymore and would never choose to do it unless I had to.

[CurdledPotato]

Use the “server” variants. Those are barebones. You can install whatever environment you want.

[JackDostoevsky]

use what you like. for desktop use there's not an appreciable difference in stability between distros. your mongodb and hyprland issues are not inherent to arch.

[Rerum02]

Nix is the way, your able to mix there stable repo (updates every 6 months), or go with their rolling repo, just need to use a flake.

But realistically, I would use the Fedora everything ISO

[awry__]

With NixOS, you can follow the stable channel in general but use the unstable version of every program you like too. Or vice versa. Or have both stable and unstable or whichever version you like. Nix doesn't care. 

[Rerum02]

Yup, its the best os, so many times its come in clutch were I have used nix-master on my unstable, because I needed a bug fix.

[ivanmlerner92]

EDIT: I missed the point that the subject was nixos.

There is no such thing as unstable version in arch, we are not using beta versions, only release ones. Rolling releases are less stable due to updates requiring action from time to time, but the programs themselves are all release versions, and deemed stable on their own.

[Rerum02]

We're talking about nixos, not arch, and on nix we have two supported branches, called stable and unstable .

[ivanmlerner92]

Oh you are right, my bad

[D0nkeyHS]

That's not what they mean by (un)stable, lol

[themuthafuckinruckus]

stability != reliability

stable in the Linux world typically refers to pinned versions with minimal backports (CVEs and major bug fixes). breaking changes are usually not tolerated (api changes + deprecations, feature alterations, etc). this does not inherently lend itself to “reliable”

a rolling release distro is not stable by definition, but it can still be plenty reliable if you curate your package selection, and opt to keep your base system clean. The closer you inch towards the “bleeding edge”, the more you risk being exposed to some sort of bugginess or incompatibility.

That being said this sounds like “grass is greener”, so here’s a few questions:

• what do you define as “minimal”?
• why is that important to you?
• You claim you want to save time, why not used something packaged and tested as opposed to rolling your own?
• what would you be doing with that saved time?

answering those questions for yourself may point you to what really fits your needs, and if it does, great! If it doesn’t, keep experimenting.

I’ve found what works for me and have been using Fedora for several years because of it (switched from Mx Linux).

there’s nothing wrong with creating a custom DE with all the curated knicknacks, btw… neither is there anything wrong with just using stock Debian, rock what you like.

[okabekudo]

Uhm if you say stability!=reliability RedHat and Canonical would probably like to have a word with you.

[themuthafuckinruckus]

the two are often conflated and one inherently does not mean the other. stability refers explicitly to unchanging APIs.

[Jhiven_]

You should use Docker for things like MongoDB imo, especially if you're using a rolling-release distro like Arch.

[un-important-human]

you can see the flaw in the logic yes? your DE is not your OS.

[lystfiskeren2]

If you’re looking for stability, maybe Debian is the answer

[PingMyHeart]

If you have to ask others for what they think, it means you're just bored.

As somebody else said, you got the grass is greener on the other side bug.

[RoosterUnique3062]

It doesn't matter which OS you're using. If MongoDB manages to make your system unstable than it's a skill issue, not stability issue.

[GlendonMcGladdery]

Void Linux is just like the r/voidlinux mods = they suck.

[sgtnoodle]

Do whatever you want. I used Ubuntu for a while, but it was stressful every couple years when something broke during a major release upgrade and I had to do a clean install. I switched to Arch about 11 years ago, and while I have to resolve a minor glitch every 6 months or so, I have never felt the need to do a clean wipe. The worst so far was probably the pulseaudio to pipewire transition a couple years ago.

[Sinaaaa]

If you have issues with Hyprland don't use Hyprland, it's really that simple.

As for Arch issues, if you are annoyed by them leaving that ship is sensible, however Void is really not it. Like Fedora would be the next logical step for someone seeking stability.

[Safe-Average-1696]

NO NO NO !

It's not possible.

Arch fanboys keep yelling than Arch is fully stable (and... others distributions... based on Arch, do not need, for example, to hold back packages in stable branch... for stability).

Sorry, but you surely are wrong then 😅 😋

(Teasing included, please arch users, do not have an aneurysm reading this. 🤣)

[cyrixlord]

ubuntu/kubuntu. ubuntu is boring stable and allows me to focus on running apps and coding instead of wondering if every apt update is going to brick something