whats so good about arch compared to linux mint? - eviltoast

new to this linux stuff sorry

  • iByteABit [he/him]@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ironically my day to day experience was harder with Debian than Arch, it was a pain trying to find up-to-date packages for pretty much everything I needed

    • nobloat@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      But why is up-to-date always good though?I get it if you actually need the new version but that’s rare though. There’s a reason that critical infrastructure relies on more stable, older and tested packages. In the industry and where the money actually is, older is generally seen as better and more mature. For example the whole drama of RedHat with Centos Stream happened because people don’t want to use upstream Centos Stream because it’s the testing ground for RHEL. I am at a stage where I prefer older packages. The new and shiny doesn’t mean it’s better.

      • iByteABit [he/him]@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Just try using any modern framework/language/library/tool/whatever with the packages that exist by default in the Debian repository, it’s impossible and a pain in the ass

        • nobloat@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          What framework do you actually use ? Most programmers use Ubuntu or Debian and I don’t see how you need something so up to date and on the edge? Apart from some specific cases, most people do not need newer packages.