OK, so Debian is not rolling release, arch is. If rolling release causes the system to implode, doesn’t that make arch more user friendly?
I’m the one that’s says the only thing unfriendly about arch is the installation. That’s a point I’m making. And truth be told, most of what a user interacts with is the DE, installation is the only real sticking point between all these systems at this point, that and package management. Outside of installation and the package manager they’re basically the same as far as the casual user is concerned. And for arch, once you get past the installation, it’s package manager is just better than apt. And EndeavorOS does the installation for you. So it’s better.
If rolling release causes the system to implode, doesn’t that make arch more user friendly?
Actually my point was that point release distro seemingly implode at some point 😅. But, I’ll assume that you meant point release here. Then, I’d argue, if you really dislike reinstalling, then Arch scores better at that. But we don’t measure how user friendly a distro is on just a single metric. That doesn’t make sense.
I’ll quote the main body in which my argument against Arch being user friendly has been laid out. I hope you’ll respond this time:
I do wonder what your definition of user friendly is. Cuz I can’t fathom how you can think that a distro that subscribes to what’s quoted below can (by any stretch of the imagination) be considered user friendly.
“Note: It is imperative to keep up to date with changes in Arch Linux that require manual intervention before upgrading your system. Subscribe to the arch-announce mailing list or the recent news RSS feed. Alternatively, check the front page Arch news every time before you update.”
Which simple means that you have to check if you can update before you actually perform an update. That’s just wild.
And you know what’s most curious about this, we’ve actually solved (within Linux) issues related to updating your system. You read that correct, it’s a solved problem. And I hope that you’ll benefit from these advancements even if you continue to use Arch.
Btw, please don’t come to me with packages that automatically pop up in terminal to inform you about manual intervention. On my system, updates occur automatically in the background and with some black magic shenanigans (or just great engineering) it ‘fixes’ itself without requiring any manual intervention from me. That pop-up message in terminal can’t compete with that.
it’s package manager is just better than apt
Earlier you called it more robust. I laid out the fault in your logic. But you didn’t care to react to it… Regardless, if it’s only speed that makes you think that, then please just say so.
OK I’m gettimg frustrated now, because you’re making literally no points at all, and now you’re quoting yourself. A whole lot of words saying absolutely nothing.
You didn’t lay out “fault in my logic”, you just asked me what I mean by robust. Do you have anything to actually say or do you just like the sound of your own voice?
You said: “If rolling release causes the system to implode, doesn’t that make arch more user friendly?”
Which, if I’ll have to guess, is what you understand from the following sentences of mine:
“But, did I understand you correctly, that you hint towards the curious observation that rolling distros in general are technically ‘immortal’ while point-release distros eventually implode on themselves?”
“The inevitable implosion happens once every two years at worst.”
Which, are the only two instances I used the word. And, in both instances, it is pretty clear what I meant. I even just checked this with a LLM and it agrees with me on this.
However, the question you posed (i.e. “If rolling release causes the system to implode, doesn’t that make arch more user friendly?”) has many flaws within it:
Like, if rolling release cause a system to implode (which I never said nor implied), then, because an implosion is clearly undesirable and thus not user friendly, Arch (as a rolling release distro) would also have been less user friendly (not more user friendly*).
So, what did you actually try to convey with that sentence? Did you make a mistake while formulating it? If so, what did you actually intend to say/ask?
Regarding me quoting myself; it’s pretty simple. I just want to ask you if you think that a distro with the following policy can be considered user friendly. And if so, could you explain why you think that’s the case? Policy:
When I quoted the text found below, I wanted to ask you why you feel pacman is better than apt beyond the claimed robustness. I agree with you that I could (and perhaps should) be more explicit.
it’s package manager is just better than apt
You didn’t lay out “fault in my logic”
I meant the following parts of my previous writings:
I’m relatively new Linux user (just over two years now), so please bear with me. But, did I understand you correctly, that you hint towards the curious observation that rolling distros in general are technically ‘immortal’ while point-release distros eventually implode on themselves? If so, wouldn’t it be more correct to attribute this to the release model (i.e. point vs rolling) instead? Because, IIRC, this issue persists on openSUSE Leap, but doesn’t on openSUSE Tumbleweed. While both utilize zypper as their package manager.
But, if you noticed, I didn’t actually explicitly mention Arch’s install or its unopinionatedness as its downfall; which are indeed solved by its derivatives. The problem is with updates. At least on Debian and Ubuntu LTS, packages are (mostly) frozen and thus updates are in general non-existent and thus are not able to cause issues. The inevitable implosion happens once every two years at worst. Is that bad?Sure.But does it cause any trouble within those two years?Nope. And honestly, I don’t blame anyone that simply prefers to worry about updates once every two years instead of daily.
To make it easier for you:
Is Debian (according to you) not robust because it breaks eventually?
Do you acknowledge that this occurs beyond the Debian ecosystem?
Do you acknowledge that this occurrence seems to be found on distros with point releases, but not on distros with rolling releases?
Do you acknowledge that, therefore, blaming the package manager for this lack of robustness is perhaps an oversight?
And do you acknowledge that, with openSUSE Tumbleweed (rolling release distro) and openSUSE Leap (point release distro), this is perhaps most evident. As both rely on zypper, but the former is basically ‘immortal’, while the latter will eventually succumb to some major release.
Thus, do you acknowledge that, in fact, Debian’s lack of robustness can not justifiably be attributed (solely) to apt. Nor, can Arch’s (seemingly) superior robustness justifiably be attributed (solely) to pacman?
And thus, do you acknowledge that, we can’t continue to make the claim of pacman’s robustness as the reasoning doesn’t hold any truth in retrospect?
Earlier, when I said
Then, I’d argue, if you really dislike reinstalling, then Arch scores better at that. But we don’t measure how user friendly a distro is on just a single metric.
IF we both understand with your earlier statement of “pacman is so much more robust than apt” that you meant that Arch installations survive longer than Debian installs (under optimal conditions). Then, we could translate this argument to; if you dislike reinstalling, then Arch scores better. But, then I proceeded, with “But we don’t measure how user friendly a distro is on just a single metric.”. I don’t think this sentence needs any explanation, but I can clarify if you feel like it. The reason why I said “single metric”, is because I assumed - with how you actually didn’t try to rebuke anything that I said in this comment of mine - that you also agreed with my points. This might be a wrong assumption. So please feel free to correct me on this.
First of all, I’d like to apologize if I misunderstood the situation. Communication only through text can be hard. And, in retrospect, I agree with you that I should have been more careful with my writing.
Secondly, please dismiss my last two replies. Especially the first is atrocious, while the second one was written under time pressure. Something that I should have not done to my fellow human being.
Thirdly, you’ve had another conversation with another user under this post. And I got most of what I wanted to get out of this conversation from that one already. And, I’d have to agree that that person was a lot more punctual and eloquent when wording their views. Thus, I understand why my writings might have felt as a downgrade by comparison.
Fourthly, thank you for your time. I appreciate it. And I wish you a great day.
Fifthly, there’s actually one thing that I really want to know 😅. But, I’ll not bring it up, unless you allow me.
OK, so Debian is not rolling release, arch is. If rolling release causes the system to implode, doesn’t that make arch more user friendly?
I’m the one that’s says the only thing unfriendly about arch is the installation. That’s a point I’m making. And truth be told, most of what a user interacts with is the DE, installation is the only real sticking point between all these systems at this point, that and package management. Outside of installation and the package manager they’re basically the same as far as the casual user is concerned. And for arch, once you get past the installation, it’s package manager is just better than apt. And EndeavorOS does the installation for you. So it’s better.
Actually my point was that point release distro seemingly implode at some point 😅. But, I’ll assume that you meant point release here. Then, I’d argue, if you really dislike reinstalling, then Arch scores better at that. But we don’t measure how user friendly a distro is on just a single metric. That doesn’t make sense.
I’ll quote the main body in which my argument against Arch being user friendly has been laid out. I hope you’ll respond this time:
Earlier you called it more robust. I laid out the fault in your logic. But you didn’t care to react to it… Regardless, if it’s only speed that makes you think that, then please just say so.
OK I’m gettimg frustrated now, because you’re making literally no points at all, and now you’re quoting yourself. A whole lot of words saying absolutely nothing.
You didn’t lay out “fault in my logic”, you just asked me what I mean by robust. Do you have anything to actually say or do you just like the sound of your own voice?
😅. Alright, I’ll digest it for ya.
You said: “If rolling release causes the system to implode, doesn’t that make arch more user friendly?”
Which, if I’ll have to guess, is what you understand from the following sentences of mine:
Which, are the only two instances I used the word. And, in both instances, it is pretty clear what I meant. I even just checked this with a LLM and it agrees with me on this.
However, the question you posed (i.e. “If rolling release causes the system to implode, doesn’t that make arch more user friendly?”) has many flaws within it:
So, what did you actually try to convey with that sentence? Did you make a mistake while formulating it? If so, what did you actually intend to say/ask?
Regarding me quoting myself; it’s pretty simple. I just want to ask you if you think that a distro with the following policy can be considered user friendly. And if so, could you explain why you think that’s the case? Policy:
“Note: It is imperative to keep up to date with changes in Arch Linux that require manual intervention before upgrading your system. Subscribe to the arch-announce mailing list or the recent news RSS feed. Alternatively, check the front page Arch news every time before you update.”
When I quoted the text found below, I wanted to ask you why you feel
pacmanis better thanaptbeyond the claimed robustness. I agree with you that I could (and perhaps should) be more explicit.I meant the following parts of my previous writings:
To make it easier for you:
zypper, but the former is basically ‘immortal’, while the latter will eventually succumb to some major release.apt. Nor, can Arch’s (seemingly) superior robustness justifiably be attributed (solely) topacman?pacman’s robustness as the reasoning doesn’t hold any truth in retrospect?Earlier, when I said
IF we both understand with your earlier statement of “pacman is so much more robust than apt” that you meant that Arch installations survive longer than Debian installs (under optimal conditions). Then, we could translate this argument to; if you dislike reinstalling, then Arch scores better. But, then I proceeded, with “But we don’t measure how user friendly a distro is on just a single metric.”. I don’t think this sentence needs any explanation, but I can clarify if you feel like it. The reason why I said “single metric”, is because I assumed - with how you actually didn’t try to rebuke anything that I said in this comment of mine - that you also agreed with my points. This might be a wrong assumption. So please feel free to correct me on this.
First of all, I’d like to apologize if I misunderstood the situation. Communication only through text can be hard. And, in retrospect, I agree with you that I should have been more careful with my writing.
Secondly, please dismiss my last two replies. Especially the first is atrocious, while the second one was written under time pressure. Something that I should have not done to my fellow human being.
Thirdly, you’ve had another conversation with another user under this post. And I got most of what I wanted to get out of this conversation from that one already. And, I’d have to agree that that person was a lot more punctual and eloquent when wording their views. Thus, I understand why my writings might have felt as a downgrade by comparison.
Fourthly, thank you for your time. I appreciate it. And I wish you a great day.
Fifthly, there’s actually one thing that I really want to know 😅. But, I’ll not bring it up, unless you allow me.
Cheers.
So you’re really butthurt, eh 😂. Don’t worry; I won’t initiate any further contact. Consider growing up though. Cheers.