Arch is NOT as Stable as Debian?

Debian is not stable. It’s immutable :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye: :sweat_smile:

Right, and they’re afraid of application updates. Thus they’re frozen way back (like in the Wayback machine).

Updates should NOT be run every day! :rofl:

1 Like

Did he just call us stupid >> 4’34" ? :crazy_face: :sweat_smile:

1 Like

Debian is far more stable. No question. I don’t even understand the need for the video.

A Ferrari is faster than a Honda civic, check this out.


Updates SHOULD be run hourly :sunglasses:


I can only understand this theoretically, but not real practically.
Theoretically Debian is more stable because it takes much longer time testing and debugging.

I see it like comparing an average though good car (say a Toyota Corolla) that comes with a bullet proof windows and glass VS a top super (say a Lamborghini or a Porsche) car with normal windows and glass.

The question is, if you are not in a war zone, and you have no enemies who want to shoot you, what would a bullet proof car give you more than the non bullet proof.

Arch/Arch based are tested enough to be stable enough, maybe not bullet proof (theoretically), but glass won’t break if a naughty kid throws a stone at it.

Nobody can say it is “defective” by not being bullet proof.

What would be better choice for someone not in a war zone or targeted!
More than a year, never had a serious issue due to an update, only minor issues I my self do them!


I use both Debian and Arch. They’re equally stable in my experience.


I believe people are very mislead into understanding “Stable” First Debian is old as soon as its released. oh yes the new version will support all the new hardware up to 6.1 is it.

However rather its is Debian or Arch all have the basic core utils of each other and those have been tried and trued for over twenty years

Neither do I :smiley:


You could install the computer with Arch in a bulletproof case - problem solved.

My main point is who needs the bullet proof?!

Hmm… I was listening to the first 10 seconds of the video now five times. I still understand that “Arch is good… especially for like a beginner to intermediate user”

1 Like

That’s probably been said "from HIS perspective", not ours. :wink:

1 Like

MAFIA-IT? :man_detective:


wasted lifetime …

1 Like

I think somehow he is right in the sense that you can learn a lot from it :thinking:
Oh well… I think it’s a fair video. Just don’t know how useful it is. People probably don’t sit there debating whether they should run one out of those two options.

He’s making a point (in another video) that really, there only are 3 main distinct Linux distros (namely Debian, Fedora, and Arch), and most all the others are merely forks with different packages installed from an Iso-release.

1 Like

There are probably not too many “non-forked” distros indeed.

Slackware and gentoo are probably other ones, even though I don’t know much about all the linux history.

1 Like

Debian is more stable because it’s always been 2 years behind in updates. :rofl: