I have never had Arch break during an update. I've never had it crash. I've never encountered an issue I couldn't resolve, and for that matter I don't really encounter issues. Usually the only problems are that I haven't installed a service that would usually come standard with another OS, so I have to check the wiki, install, and configure something.
I haven't had Arch break during an update, but I always check the home page first, there are absolutely times my system would have broken during a blind update.
Arch doesn't support blind updates - it explicitly tells you to always check the home page before an update in case "out-of-the-ordinary" user intervention is required. https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/System_maintenance
Basically, don't run arch unless you're willing to be a Linux system admin.
Similar, but a little more involved, to Debian testing or unstable. Install apt-listbugs and when you go to upgrade it'll let you know what issues are floating around. You can choose to work around the issue, or wait a day or two for the wrinkles to be ironed out.
Stable doesn't mean that the OS doesn't break, but that the way it functions doesn't change.
I see. I asked because "stable" means different things in different distros. In Debian it means that interfaces and functionality in one version doesn't change. If I set up a script that interacts with the system in various ways, parsing output, using certain binaries in certain ways etc, I should be able to trust that it works the same year after year with upgrades within the same release. To some people this is important, to some people it isn't.
Wouldn't OpenSUSE Tumbleweed be a much better option then?
One of my staff runs Tumbleweed. I will get around to evaluating it one day.
Arch has rolling releases and is super stable.
How do you define "stable"?
Low occurence of notable bugs during daily use.
"Ability to reboot without breaking a sweat"
I have never had Arch break during an update. I've never had it crash. I've never encountered an issue I couldn't resolve, and for that matter I don't really encounter issues. Usually the only problems are that I haven't installed a service that would usually come standard with another OS, so I have to check the wiki, install, and configure something.
I haven't had Arch break during an update, but I always check the home page first, there are absolutely times my system would have broken during a blind update.
Arch doesn't support blind updates - it explicitly tells you to always check the home page before an update in case "out-of-the-ordinary" user intervention is required. https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/System_maintenance
Basically, don't run arch unless you're willing to be a Linux system admin.
Similar, but a little more involved, to Debian testing or unstable. Install
apt-listbugsand when you go to upgrade it'll let you know what issues are floating around. You can choose to work around the issue, or wait a day or two for the wrinkles to be ironed out.Stable doesn't mean that the OS doesn't break, but that the way it functions doesn't change.
I see. I asked because "stable" means different things in different distros. In Debian it means that interfaces and functionality in one version doesn't change. If I set up a script that interacts with the system in various ways, parsing output, using certain binaries in certain ways etc, I should be able to trust that it works the same year after year with upgrades within the same release. To some people this is important, to some people it isn't.
Wouldn't OpenSUSE Tumbleweed be a much better option then?
One of my staff runs Tumbleweed. I will get around to evaluating it one day.