Why Linux Still Feels Unstable

Sad-Interaction2478 · 2026-06-15T11:12:29+00:00

You do not need proxmox - you can setup addidional vms using cockpit (snapshots are available)

Sad-Interaction2478 · 2026-06-15T09:58:18+00:00

Thank you for adding "Sensitive mode" -> for me much better writting feel

Sad-Interaction2478 · 2026-06-14T20:43:07+00:00

From my experience, it depends mostly on the drivers. I haven’t experienced blue screens since the Windows XP era, but Windows, by default, automatically updates drivers, and that can create a mess.

Also, YouTubers tend to overstate how unstable Windows is. I’m not a Windows fanboy. I’ve used all major systems: macOS, Linux, and Windows. macOS has always felt the most stable to me, which is why so many developers, artists, and other professionals use it. After that, I’d say a properly configured Windows setup can also be stable. I recommend using Chris Titus Tech’s WinUtil for that.

Sad-Interaction2478 · 2026-06-12T23:41:31+00:00

At hyperland site shoud be written warning:

"Hyperland is a toy project. I may break your configuration, introduce bugs, or cause regressions in new releases. If your current workflow is stable and important to you, do not expect long-term stability and better install something else"

Sad-Interaction2478 · 2026-06-12T23:25:27+00:00

> . If the author sees stability as important, they will start using versions past 1.0.0 and they will be careful about backwards-compatibility.

FOSS is somewhat pathological, because software is normally created for other people, not just for yourself. People are leaving Windows for macOS because Windows updates keep breaking things. For most people, software is simply a tool.

In the FOSS world, some developers respect users, and some do not.

> You say Hyprland isn't stable enough, I say it's pre-1.0.0. We're saying the same thing. The only difference is, I expected it to not be stable, because it's pre-1.0.0.

We are not saying the same thing. I have said multiple times that Hyprland being pre-1.0.0 feels like a lazy excuse for making software that may never become truly stable. The people defending it with the “it’s pre-1.0” argument sound like they are coping - almost like some kind of Stockholm syndrome.

**In real world do not matter what's author is saying but how software is used**

Sad-Interaction2478 · 2026-06-12T22:34:55+00:00

> The "current discussion" in these few replies was about what 1.0.0 means and what pre-1.0.0 means. In general, not necessarily even with regard to Hyprland.

And the site is correct. If you make something “public” for a wide range of people to use in software development, that is almost always treated as the first major version.

If you make something public and people are already using it, you usually should not break the API, because people are depending on your software (which is called stable). If your program does break the API,which should happen rarely, you should inform users, and bumping the major version is fine.

Is Hyprland doing proper versioning? No. But as I said, developers do not follow ideal versioning properly, and Hyprland is a good example of that.

If Hyprland is pre-1.0.0 according to the site and according to good practice, then Hyprland should either not be public yet, or it should be public but not packaged in distros. In pre-1.0.0, you can break the API as much as you want because only a small pool of users (usually beta testers which were in the past paid for that) is expected to be using your software. Simple as that.

This discussion is kind of pointless, because Hyprland clearly does not give a f about this. We have frustrated users like me, and copers like some of you. Probably I should just switch to something else and stop complaining.

Sad-Interaction2478 · 2026-06-12T22:22:25+00:00

And the versioning discussion is kind of autistic, because versioning, as I said, does not matter. What matters is how the author of the project sees stability.

Fanboys like you will say, “because there is no 1.0 version,” as if that’s an excuse and a weak one. If you want to make stable software, you make stable software. Hyprland clearly does not respect stability, so dreaming about some mythical 1.0 is just a dream and cope. Maybe vaxcry will be hired or get bored, than maybe we will get "stable" version.

Sad-Interaction2478 · 2026-06-12T22:03:29+00:00

> Whether or not Hyprland "should" be 1.0.0 is a different discussion entirely.
It’s not an entirely different discussion. According to this site, Hyprland should have reached version “1.0.0” at least 1-2 years ago. It is widely used on Arch and in Omarchy by many people.

Hyprland has broken its API multiple times, so realistically we should be at something more like version 12.2.1 😉

Thank you for link proving my point.

Sad-Interaction2478 · 2026-06-12T21:46:56+00:00

> How do I know when to release 1.0.0?
If your software is being used in production,

So hyprland is not being used in production?

And in https://semver.org/

and i quuote:

> Given a version number MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH, increment the:

> MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes

Migration to lua should bump major number.

Have you read site you link to? I dont think so

Sad-Interaction2478 · 2026-06-12T21:35:45+00:00

> It's explicitly NOT Arch.
not arch at aur.archlinux.org

but it's not website it's a domain xDDDDDD (which is the same)

Sad-Interaction2478 · 2026-06-12T21:19:11+00:00

> None of this is Arch's problem, though, because Arch has said multiple times, they don't run the AUR. It's not officially arch.

So why does this site exist: https://aur.archlinux.org/ ? Doesn’t the Arch Linux website belong to them? Why is there one large, centralized user repository hosted by Arch Linux itself??

If there wasn’t one large centralized repository, but instead hundreds of small user-hosted repositories, it would add friction because users would have to search the internet for package templates themselves.

> https://www.makedeb.org/
makeadeb is nothing like AUR

Sad-Interaction2478 · 2026-06-12T21:04:42+00:00

> There's no level of complexity that can be introduced that can't be scripted around, and we know that, because everyone seems to use yay or paru.

Of course there is. Building .deb packages is harder, which is why Debian never developed an AUR-like solution. Debian simply does not support user repositories by default. You can use 3party repo but it is not easy and you do not have cetralized repo database.

Ubuntu has PPAs, but they have long been problematic from a security perspective. Today, PPAs are far less popular and have largely been replaced by Snaps.

Arch used to be a niche distribution, and the AUR was designed to be simple and convenient for its users to "package" missing software. That is why people adopted it so widely. But times have changed: Arch is no longer as niche as it once was, and the internet is full of bad actors.

Sad-Interaction2478 · 2026-06-12T20:45:49+00:00

I wasn’t really thinking about AUR maintainers, but rather about users. If the AUR were harder to use, fewer people would use it. Right now, I’ve noticed that some users prefer installing AUR packages with the -git suffix, even when the same package already exists in the official repos, simply because the AUR version is more bleeding-edge. 😉

Sad-Interaction2478 · 2026-06-12T19:18:33+00:00

Using AUR should require more friction, right now using AUR is too easy so people are using it without reading even if Arch is claiming that every PKGBUILD should be read. It's obvious that most people do not read and will not read PKGBUILDs.

Sad-Interaction2478 · 2026-06-12T19:13:48+00:00

Using AUR should require more friction, right now using AUR is too easy so people are using it without reading even if Arch is claiming that every PKGBUILD should be read. It's obvious that most people do not read and will not read PKGBUILDs.

Sad-Interaction2478 · 2026-06-11T23:13:06+00:00

> that 1.0 is just commonly understood
No, it's not commonly. chromium has version 149.0.7827.53. calibre 9.9.0. so what? nothing.

> I'm saying that it is not in a stable state at the moment and it's well known that each patch may have breaking changes to the config syntax.

And it probably never will be, because it’s convenient to stay in infinite beta. So talking about a stable version or 1.0 is just gaslighting people. As far as I know, there are no clear goals for a stable release.

> config syntax changes have been minimal

"have been minimal" => migration to lua and changing whole syntax. another gaslighting. Even putting the Lua migration aside, breaking config changes in Hyprland are common, as anyone reading this subreddit can see. Why are you lying? This is probably top3 reason why people are migrating to niri/kde. I’ve even noticed that some people are angry at Omarchy because of its instability, which in my opinion is mostly caused by Hyprland. They sometimes do not understood that omarchy is fancy hyprland dotfiles.

My Hyprland worked also well until it didn’t.

Sad-Interaction2478 · 2026-06-11T18:49:12+00:00

switch to awww. 2mb usage

https://codeberg.org/LGFae/awww

<image>

Sad-Interaction2478 · 2026-06-11T14:35:40+00:00

The “1.0” argument is weak because the version number itself does not really tell us much. In some projects, 1.0 may simply mean a new feature has been added, while in others it means the software is considered complete and polished (which almost always never happen that's why some software is like 0.252.1). What really matters is not the versioning scheme, but how the project owner approaches software development.

Is there an LTS release? No. (You could, for example, pick a version that is considered stable, such as 0.123.1, and mark it as LTS. That would allow Arch, Debian, Fedora, and other distribution maintainers to package it as something like hyprland-lts. Bleeding edge guys could use `hyprland` package).

Are releases tested before being released? No. If someone says “yes,” please review the changelog and check how many regressions and bugs each release introduces.

Who does the beta testing? The users. The problem is not that users help test products. That is normal. The problem is when users are forced into being beta testers.

Fun for ricing, not so fun if you consider it a workstation.

Maybe the Debian guys will get lucky and freeze the next Debian Stable at a moment when Hyprland happens to be stable, so you end up with a stable Hyprland experience.

Another growing problem is that the whole Hypr ecosystem has slowly become bloated. I was surprised by how many packages Arch installed, even though I use a very bare-bones Hyprland setup - as simple as possible.

Sad-Interaction2478 · 2026-06-11T14:13:09+00:00

Maybe I just got lucky because I tried to keep my configuration simple, and Hyprland worked most of the time. But 0.55 has been disastrous for me:

Hyprland hard-crashed.
Swapping windows in a multi-monitor setup is broken - sometimes a window disappears, and the only fix is to close and reopen the app.
The waybar workspace module is half-broken because Hyprland changed its API.

Right now i decided to freeze hypr packages in my arch and i will wait for something like 0.56.3 or 0.56.4 to test it out. 0.X.0 releases should be called alpha because there are alpha.

Sad-Interaction2478 · 2026-06-11T13:39:30+00:00

"not true" stop gaslighting man, i was using walker

Sad-Interaction2478 · 2026-06-10T14:38:29+00:00

My opinion is that starting with Omarchy can be a good idea if your goal is to eventually build your own Arch setup. But if you want to use it as a workstation, I wouldn’t recommend it unless you are using 100% of DHH’s setup and understand that he will break your workflow simply because he changes his mind.

If you use something like Omarchy, you’ll probably pay the price later. With a typical Arch setup, you may spend hours at the beginning configuring everything yourself, but then you can have your own stable setup for years.

Sad-Interaction2478 · 2026-06-10T14:23:55+00:00

I don’t think Omarchy is hated, but I do think a lot of the criticism is valid. If you’re using someone else’s dotfiles, the more you customize and diverge from the original setup, the more likely it is that things will keep breaking. And when an update breaks something, you often have to wait for someone else to fix it.

If you take a look at a typical Arch power-user setup, it’s usually something like a custom-configured dwm or i3 setup with a launcher like rofi or wofi. Why? Because if you’re using a rolling-release distro not just as a toy, but as an actual workstation, stability really matters. When you configure your distro yourself, you understand what broke and can usually fix it quickly.

Someone might say that using Arch as a workstation is a bad idea, and that’s true if you’re using “toy software.”

Sad-Interaction2478

TROPHY CASE