Victor

Huh, weird.

The thing is, you asked what made them think that, and I told you it was already answered. 👍🦋

But I guess you were asking a rhetorical question all along? 🙂

The thing is, it’s already been answered. The conclusion was made based on reading the gitlab discussion. 🤷‍♂️ I didn’t read that myself but maybe try doing that if you’re curious. 😉🫶

Is this sealioning? 🫴🦋

Child.

You are acting childish. Grow up.

light ribbing

You call this light ribbing? 😂

You aren’t sorry. Get the fuck out of here.

I don’t think having kids or a family is “exposing” myself lol.

You talk about me being arrogant but you have some of the most obnoxious behavior I’ve seen on Lemmy thus far. You keep doing more name calling as well. What are you, 8?

Maybe look in the mirror, son. Grow up. 🖕

I’m pushing my point about what I was clap talking about, dude. Did you miss that? I said you can CHOOSE YOUR OWN UPGRADE FREQUENCY.

I’m saying that is a mitigator for installing compromised packages. Yes?

Bruh, you have no case. Go away, troll.

I didn’t need to do that, I just used a RSS feed reader directly from the Arch news.

Nice, that’s a great solution!

Ah, I misunderstood what you were saying about installing that thing from the AUR then, in your example. I get it now.

But to think that the deprecation was caused by… upgrading! 😆

We’re very deep into this thread now and I’m sort of losing the plot, and it’s very late here. But these anecdotes I find are quite rare. Surely this would be happening in a non-rolling release as well. If Arch deprecated a package, and Debian were to do so for the same reason (seems likely, perhaps?), the only difference is the time frame in which you have to/choose to deal with it. If it disappeared from the Debian repo, you’d have to find some way of replacing it yourself, too.

I might be misunderstanding you again, I feel. But I hope you see what I mean, in case I’m understanding the situation correctly.

It’s the same thing as postponing updates though, isn’t that right? I mean, essentially, it is. Right? You pick when you update the system. Minus the curation aspect, of course. But they don’t push updates very often, do they.

It wasn’t the best example though, of course. 👍

What on earth are you talking about? 😆 You have no idea who I am or how many friends I have lmao. I have more than I have time to keep up with, sadly. It’s hard with two small kids and a family.

Anyway, I really was just asking a question. What the fuck did I say that people take offense to? Please read the room aloud for me, if you could? Without being a rude prick?

Edit: I went through your comment history a bit, because name calling is usually a huge red flag for me, indicating that someone has a social problem and isn’t worth my time. Seems like you really like name calling, and you like to call people out loudly when they don’t understand something that you do. You pride yourself on your intellect, I imagine. And it makes you feel good when you put people down that don’t have an intellect that measures up to your own, especially if yours gets challenged, even a little bit, by someone else. Instant defensive mode.

I think I might cancel my request for you to tell me what was wrong with what I said. I’ll ask someone else that comes along. Thanks for dropping by, though.

(Also seems like you’re more of a Linux nerd than I am, so joke’s on you. 😅 Peace. ✌️)

that is quite literally one of the features of a rolling release distro.

It’s one of the features, yes, but you can’t tell me what my point for choosing Arch is, as you did in the other reply. I decide that point. Not you, not even Arch. I chose Arch for its other features, which is my prerogative, since it’s free.

This is your argument that you brought up, that the “whole point” of a rolling release system is to have the latest software. I agree that “the point of a rolling release” is “to have the latest software”. But the rolling release thing is just a bonus for me, and it’s not why I chose Arch, so that argument doesn’t work in my case. It isn’t the only feature of the system.

As for pacman, then yeah I can agree that it’s a good reason to use Arch simply because you like the package manager. But that’s not what we’re talking about here.

Well I had to bring it up because it was to show you that I don’t use Arch for its rolling release feature. 🤷‍♂️ People just have different reasons for choosing a distro. And thus, you can choose 👏 your 👏 own 👏 upgrading 👏 frequency 👏. That is my point. You are free to do as you wish. Nobody is holding a gun to your head telling you to run a cron job of pacman every five minutes.

then why choose Arch in the first place? One of the key elements in the philosophy for Arch is: Modernity, i.e. to always have the latest version to be the stable version,

Everyone has their reasons for choosing the distro that they choose.

I’ll copy paste what I wrote in reply to someone else with this type of argument:

I didn’t choose Arch because of that. I chose Arch because I got to decide what to install on my system, from basically nothing. I get to choose how lean or thicc my system is. That was my motivation. And pacman just seemed like such a sensible package manager after reading its manual. 😙👌 […] You decide, just like you can decide not to upgrade to the latest point release from Debian if you don’t want to.

Now, regarding:

but you do have to keep track of this.

And that isn’t a hassle. You sign up to it when you install Arch. If you aren’t willing to do that thing that takes a shorter time (loading up the Arch homepage) than actually issuing the upgrade command 😄, then yeah, Arch isn’t for you. Let’s concede that much, I suppose.

I also used packages that have been deprecated from the official repository, and then maintaned by users in the AUR. These are things that break the users experience and require maintenance.

Right, again, that’s you creating maintenance for yourself. AUR is considered separate from the distro itself. I stand by my main point. 😁

The whole point of a bleeding-edge and rolling-release distro is that you get the lastest packages available.

That’s you projecting. I didn’t choose Arch because of that. I chose Arch because I got to decide what to install on my system, from basically nothing. I get to choose how lean or thicc my system is. That was my motivation. And pacman just seemed like such a sensible package manager after reading its manual. 😙👌

Sometimes I don’t upgrade my system for more than a week, e.g. during vacation when I’m not by my computer much. Still, no issues. You can upgrade as much as you want. You decide, just like you can decide not to upgrade to the latest point release from Debian if you don’t want to.

if something breaks, they work around it

That’s the thing though, what breaks? I haven’t had anything break in 10+ years. Guess I’m lucky? Or other people are really unlucky/careless? Where is the discrepancy coming from, between this notion of Arch breaking for everyone all the time and it not happening for me? Or is it just simply a legend of a bygone era? I hear it was worse like maybe 15 years ago. Maybe Arch hasn’t shaken that image, still.

I mean, Steam Deck is based on Arch ffs. You can have it “stable” if you like. Why choose that distro if there’s so much “inherent risk” with it. It’s a solid distro if you know how to control yourself and your actions IMO.

missing FDE in particular will require you to reinstall

I don’t have FDE and I haven’t had a need to reinstall. I’m running it on my desktop computer at home.

the default setup is hardly a best practice

But that’s during installation. Arch users will/should tell you that once you install your system and it works the way you want it to, you don’t really need to “maintain it” unless you create maintenance work for yourself. Same for “fiddling”.

What?

Neat, sounds like fun if you have the patience, time, and necessary knowledge to keep learning. 😊