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?

  • boredsquirrel@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    The thing is package management, resettability, rebasing/redeploying with a config file, and avoiding config file creep.

    I broke 10 distros before, and of course I also learned, but I simply didnt break Fedora Atomic Desktops in 2 years or so.

    But I layer about 20 packages, which is not a really nice process on Atomic, while it works for sure.

    • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I use Fedora silver blue and it is mostly solid. However, it isn’t something I would jump into without an interest in immutable Linux or embedded systems.