On Sunday, March 22, 2020 2:28:13 PM CET Piscium via arch-general wrote: > Before Arch I used Fedora for 7 years. I found Fedora far more stable > than Arch when upgrading to a new Fedora version 3 months after > release when most bugs have been fixed. With Arch there is always > something that does not work properly and then days or weeks later it > starts working again. It is not Arch's fault, rather it results from > its KISS principle of making minimal or no changes to upstream > packages so you get all the issues from upstream. Fedora does lots of > patching and updates things less often so it is more stable than Arch. > > My suggestion is that if you are looking for reliability to use Debian > Stable which has a big choice of packages and it stable, or else > Fedora which is in between Debian Stable and Arch with respect to > up-to-date packages and stability. Arch might not be the best distro > for you. My €0.02. I kind of disagree, I think that the KISS, no-magic approach of arch is perfect for visually impaired or blind power users like Jude. However, maybe you should consider using the LTS kernel, packages as linux- lts? I have it installed and boot into it every ~4 years when something critical like wifi breaks. The LTS kernel has never broken for me, you might have a better experience with that. Cheers, Bennett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
