Is Arch Unstable?

[medic2000]

A friend of mine is using ArchLinux and i've seen that he has suffered from broken packages too much. I installed Arch on my brother's laptop and again it has broken.

Do you think that Arch needs a stable branch? Maybe they should kept the packages in testing and unstable a bit longer. Or a third category would be beautiful? This category will be the last step before the package gets into main repos.

Above all else is it just me thinks this way?

[Ayuthia]

I have installed Arch on my desktop and laptop and it is my main OS now. I have rarely run into any issues with it. There have been some times when they have updates that will bring back some error messages, but the Arch forums usually have the answers for them in their stickies.

I will say that configuring Arch is more difficult than Ubuntu. Once I get mine configured, it stays very stable.

[cardinals_fan]

The problem is that a stable branch still requires updates - security updates. The amount of manpower is the same either way - Arch has chosen the latest-software-available route. I use my Arch for testing, and have a Slackware fallback.

[yabbadabbadont]

I liked Arch, but they just don't have enough developers to keep up with security updates (via new package versions as cardinals_fan said).

[Whiffle]

Anybody got anything specific? I've been using arch for a while now and have only had issues with the kde 3 to kde 4 transition, other than its been rock solid.

[crimesaucer]

I actually voted for "You noob".


I don't really feel that way, but I do feel that Arch is advertised as a system that will have to be worked on and maintained constantly. It is very stable, it just needs a bit of user-interaction to make it that way.

[MaxIBoy]

The stability of Arch is directly a function of how well you set it up.

That's why I don't use it.

[chucky chuckaluck]

The stability of Arch is directly a function of how well you set it up.

i'm guessing that's pretty true. like any distro, if you go for simpler, more minimal apps, you're going to get something that's more stable.

That's why I don't use it.

haha!

[Rumor]

The stability of Arch is directly a function of how well you set it up.


+1

Arch is what you make of it. I've never, in over two years of using Arch, had my system become unusable from an upgrade. I've had two times where I've had to re-run my nvidia utility to reconfigure X, but that's one simple command and I am back.

Misfit138 very recently posted some excellent advice in the Arch forums Newbie Corner that it is the user's responsibility to Think before upgrading.

If you use the repositories enabled on install and stay away from Unstable and Testing you shouldn't encounter any problems. Heck, even with testing enabled, you shouldn't have any if you pay attention to the upgrades offered or the messages pacman gives you during an upgrade.

[Buffalo Soldier]

a bit more "hands on", but definitely rock stable.

[fwojciec]

A friend of mine is using ArchLinux and i've seen that he has suffered from broken packages too much. I installed Arch on my brother's laptop and again it has broken.

Do you think that Arch needs a stable branch? Maybe they should kept the packages in testing and unstable a bit longer. Or a third category would be beautiful? This category will be the last step before the package gets into main repos.

Above all else is it just me thinks this way?

Arch is by no means perfect, nothing is, but it is predictable and reliable -- at least this has been the case throughout 1,5 years or so that I've been using Arch.

In Arch the user is responsible for making the system stable. Arch is just some excellent tools and some generic packages -- you still need to do the work of fitting them into a working whole. In my experience what people call a "broken package" is some configuration issue, or something easy to fix in either case. Perhaps if you let us know what's wrong we might be able to help?

As a rule of thumb, though: if you expect Arch to be like Ubuntu in that it "just works" and seamlessly keeps itself up to date with minimal user interaction once set up, then you will be ultimately disappointed with Arch.

[RiceMonster]

I'll put it this way: If someone asks for a stable distro, I won't recommend Arch, but I won't say it's unstable either, because I haven't really had stability problems with it.

[myusername]

xorg, rhythmbox and totem broke for me. i went to the rhythmbox and totem from the testing repo and it seems to have been fixed. xorg randomly breaks from time to time. but a restart fixes it

[SomeGuyDude]

I don't have the "testing" repo enabled because I don't know enough of what I'm doing to fix anything.

Using just the core/extra/community repos, nothing's been a problem any time I've ever gone for it, and the last swath of updates haven't hurt either.

[handy]

I can't vote in this pole as none of the options suit my experience. Arch usage is more complex than the pole allows for imho.

I think Arch is very stable, it is in many ways easier to install (providing your hardware is linux happy) than most people who have never installed it think it is.

The Arch package management is a wonder.

So much of the simplicity of Arch requires user input, & self education. So Arch is harder than most distro's because of the knowledge that you need to gain to do so many things.

When a problem arises, provided you can get yourself onto the Arch (& Ubuntu) forums you will solve the problem, often the solution is simple to apply, though it may take you a while to get the information as the Arch forum is not as populated as the Ubuntu one.

There may currently be a bug in the newly released kernel that has affected quite a few of us, it is not hard to downgrade to the previous kernel to get a fully functioning internet (provided you haven't recently cleared /var/cache/pacman/pkg/); though you need to know what is causing the problem.

This is not Arch's fault, where the fault lies, (I am learning :-)) is with the users who do pacman -Syu without having first checked the Arch home page & the forums to see if there is any known problems OR, is there a new kernel in this upgrade.

This is the kind of thing that Misfit has put in his recent great post in the Arch Newbie Corner (http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=57205). He too was bitten by this bug & I suspect that it may have been his inspiration.

[medic2000]

Hey thanks for a lot comments there. As i said before i really like Arch. Using it on Desktop, Laptop and also i've installed on my girlfriend's laptop ArchLinux and Openbox.

Yes i agree with the decision to make updates carefuly and not in an urgent time. Like last night. My father has to write some documents( i learned after the update) and surprise father! The system is broken. The latest update update taught a lot things about watch the forums and arch's main page about updates and vice versa. And i was planning to use a backup system secondary to Arch like Ubuntu. Now i will do it.

[K.Mandla]

Moved to Arch Linux discussion area.

I don't find Arch any more or less stable than any other distro. I have, in the past, been hit with bugs that kept a system from booting, but that has happened in other, supposedly "stable" periodic-release distros too.

If you don't want to run the risk of new software damaging your system, don't update. :twisted:

[sub2007]

A friend of mine is using ArchLinux and i've seen that he has suffered from broken packages too much. I installed Arch on my brother's laptop and again it has broken.

Do you think that Arch needs a stable branch? Maybe they should kept the packages in testing and unstable a bit longer. Or a third category would be beautiful? This category will be the last step before the package gets into main repos.

Above all else is it just me thinks this way?

Well yes I guess that it's inherent that a constantly updated distro won't be as stable as, say, Debian stable. There are plenty of "stable" distros out there if you want rock solid stability. The thing I love about Arch is that you do get the latest and greatest whilst maintaining stability. I have personally never run into any issues with updating other than the recent klibc issue which was easily fixed after reading a sticky. Then I've seen plenty of people experience problems with apt too. I think if you're not prepared to do stuff like that then you shouldn't use Arch. I've never enabled the testing repo in Arch.

Personally I think I've had more crashes with Hardy (an advertised "stable" LTS) than I've had with Arch. As Ricemonster summed up perfectly though: I wouldn't say it's stable but I wouldn't say it's unstable either.

[chucky chuckaluck]

I don't have the "testing" repo enabled because I don't know enough of what I'm doing to fix anything.

same here. at least the back row of the lemming herd has something softer to land on.

[doorknob60]

No, for me it's more stable than Ubuntu and even Debian.

[handy]

same here. at least the back row of the lemming herd has something softer to land on.

:lolflag:

It can still get very messy though...

[will1911a1]

Never had any stability problems that weren't my fault. I can hardly blame Arch for my own mistakes.

[handy]

Never had any stability problems that weren't my fault. I can hardly blame Arch for my own mistakes.

It does get a bit tricky when you inadvertently download a bug, as has been happening just lately with the current kernel.

Yes, I agree, if you check Arch's - The Latest News, & the Arch forum before you do an -Syu you have a much better chance of not being surprised with a bug. Plenty of us have been surprised just lately, & may be more vigilant in future. :-)

I know in future whenever I see a new kernel coming in an -Syu I will not accept it, & wait for some days whilst keeping my eye on the Arch forum looking for any related trouble.

[medic2000]

Yeah the update is faceless surprise. We should wait and watch silently in the shadows to see what it does, what it shows to other victims first. :twisted:

If it is beautiful and giving sugars and kisses to crowd why should we wait then. Lets go to confront that speedy entity(so speedy that it can ruin your system in seconds or create a wonder in seconds) and talk its language: Pacman -Syu :)

[Grant A.]

Arch is perfectly good for i686 computers with intel graphics cards, but on x64 systems with Nvidia cards, the opengl package breaks :(

[handy]

Yeah the update is faceless surprise. We should wait and watch silently in the shadows to see what it does, what it shows to other victims first. :twisted:

If it is beautiful and giving sugars and kisses to crowd why should we wait then. Lets go to confront that speedy entity(so speedy that it can ruin your system in seconds or create a wonder in seconds) and talk its language: Pacman -Syu :)

I think a large proportion of Arch users can handle whatever problems come at them quite easily. It is only those of us who are lacking expertise with regard to the Linux kernel based distro's that make hard work out of bugged packages & other kinds of problems.

I have learned enough from the current bug, & the practice I have had downgrading/upgrading & testing possible solution to handle any future kernel bug problems with ease. For that matter any package upgrade that is a problem for my system can be handled the same way.

[crimesaucer]

I learn about Linux more on Arch than I did on ubuntu..... I don't mind fixing breakages, even if I have to search a while for the correct answer..... I find it fun.

[handy]

I learn about Linux more on Arch than I did on ubuntu..... I don't mind fixing breakages, even if I have to search a while for the correct answer..... I find it fun.

As long as we can access the internet for information & file downloads/installations we are in the game. With LiveCD's it certainly makes the information accessible by most people, getting the files is as easy as your knowledge & hardware makes it.

[mips]

Arch is perfectly good for i686 computers with intel graphics cards, but on x64 systems with Nvidia cards, the opengl package breaks :(

Can you elaborate a bit more. I'm using AMD64 (Intel Core2Quad) with nVidia + prop drivers and don't have problems.

[will1911a1]

It does get a bit tricky when you inadvertently download a bug, as has been happening just lately with the current kernel.

Yes, I agree, if you check Arch's - The Latest News, & the Arch forum before you do an -Syu you have a much better chance of not being surprised with a bug. Plenty of us have been surprised just lately, & may be more vigilant in future. :-)

I know in future whenever I see a new kernel coming in an -Syu I will not accept it, & wait for some days whilst keeping my eye on the Arch forum looking for any related trouble.

Actually the new kernel didn't give me any trouble at all aside from muting all the channels in alsamixer. The only update I can remember having trouble with was the klibc one with all the file conflicts and that had a very simple solution.

[handy]

Actually the new kernel didn't give me any trouble at all aside from muting all the channels in alsamixer. The only update I can remember having trouble with was the klibc one with all the file conflicts and that had a very simple solution.

It will be interesting to see what little subtlety has been messing up some peoples TPC & not affecting others.

Kernel bug tracking, a job for a team of specialists I would think.

[will1911a1]

It will be interesting to see what little subtlety has been messing up some peoples TPC & not affecting others.

Kernel bug tracking, a job for a team of specialists I would think.

It's certainly not for me! I've been extremely lucky as far as that sort of thing goes. I don't know if it's because I'm running on older hardware or what, but I never have any issues in Arch (knock on wood).

Now, Ubuntu locked up my machine constantly. Go figure.

[handy]

It's certainly not for me! I've been extremely lucky as far as that sort of thing goes. I don't know if it's because I'm running on older hardware or what, but I never have any issues in Arch (knock on wood).

Now, Ubuntu locked up my machine constantly. Go figure.

I was refering to the people that develop the Linux kernel. They have to have the finest eye for detail & specialised understanding, I would think that there are various specialists, even specialist teams, I don't know how many are on the job?