←back to thread

203 points binwiederhier | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
whatsupdog[dead post] ◴[] No.45050631[source]
[flagged]
majkinetor ◴[] No.45050903[source]
Nah, I used various Linux distros for years and the update problems happen there all the time, I think even more TBH, and require substantial technical expertise to fix them.

IMO, the only good way is "if it works, don't fix it", which means, no updates. People are seriously overhyping updates.

I stopped updating all the stuff - OSes, smart locks, android apps, TVs, BP monitors - I honestly had multiple update problems on ALL mentioned devices, multiple times. I only update the thing when I have an actual problem and there is changelog stating that the bug is fixed, or when I want a new feature. You can handle security in other ways in almost all the cases.

I think this IT update burden has gotten out of hand - I don't recall any other domain is like that - my car, my house, my bicycle, my glasses DO NOT UPDATE and its glorious - apart from physical damage, they work the same as yesterday.

replies(4): >>45051015 #>>45051035 #>>45051047 #>>45051094 #
jamesnorden ◴[] No.45051015[source]
I've also been using Linux for years (Arch, btw) and never had an update break my install or cause issues, I've only had to fix the Linux bootloader when Windows overwrote it after a major update, multiple times...
replies(4): >>45051037 #>>45051159 #>>45051385 #>>45051464 #
dijit ◴[] No.45051159[source]
I've had plenty of issues with Arch updates.

In fact; I have a laptop right now that hasn't received updates because there's a shared object that has been removed that `yay` depends on.

(this was from a long time ago).

I generally think that updates of the mainstream distro's like Debian will definitely *NOT* brick your system in almost any circumstance, and arch tends to be somewhat solid, but every once in a while something dire happens with arch which would make me not agree with the fact that updates are always seamless.

replies(2): >>45051299 #>>45064184 #
akimbostrawman ◴[] No.45051299[source]
AUR issues are not arch issues

"AUR packages are user-produced content. These PKGBUILDs are completely unofficial and have not been thoroughly vetted. Any use of the provided files is at your own risk."

Usually just rebuilding a AUR package will fix most issues.

replies(2): >>45051338 #>>45051420 #
1. majkinetor ◴[] No.45051420[source]
Yeah, arch is basically unusable without AUR, so that is semantic difference without grounding in reality. Many people use Arch becuase of its package manager.
replies(1): >>45051789 #
2. akimbostrawman ◴[] No.45051789[source]
That is maybe how you feel but it obviously works just fine without it otherwise it would not be explicitly separated. I do not have more than a handful AUR packages none of which are essential or without alternative.

>Many people use Arch because of its package manager

True pacman is great but that has nothing to do with the AUR.