Hi!

I installed Arch linux and I've been using it only for a few days, so I don't have much experience with it. I see that it is one of the most bleeding edge distros, with always the latest packages. I think that this can cause stability problems, so my question is does it really cause? So how often does it happen that after an upgrade something doesn't work?
I know that only one version of a package can be installed, so if something goes wrong, the user can't do anything else, but waiting for the developers to release a fixed version. How long does it take?

Balazs

The term 'stability' has two meanings in Linuxland.

In terms of not crashing your system, Arch is just fine. It uses up-to-date packages, but up-to-date release versions, not alphas and betas.

In terms of stability as in an unchanging system (and thus not breaking compatibility with software not in the distro), Arch obviously isn't stable; for that, you want something like Debian, CentOS, or Ubuntu's LTS releases.

I've never suffered breakage after package updating in Arch. (Whereas I have had breakage in Ubuntu; the notorious upgrade that broke the GUI springs to mind).

1 members found this post helpful.

Thanks for the reply and the "enlightenment".
I meant stability as not crashing the system.

You won't crash your system. Arch is as stable as it's user can make it.

Oh and make sure you read the announcements and news on the /homepage before you update.

I have now standardized on Arch for my main systems. I don't have any siginificant stability issues--except sometimes with CrossOver and Windows apps.

KDE 4.3.X still has some quirks, but none have caused significant trouble.

The official NVidia driver on my laptop wants to be re-compiled with every new kernel--but once the system is set up correct, re-installing the driver is easy.

Another vote for Arch. I use it frequently. No stability issues.

In the event something does act up, there is always usually a fix in the forums. The user support is top knotch.

I 2nd that notion. True with any Linux, Unix or *BSD system.

Arch is rock solid. You'll have no stability issues with that distribution.

But what if something does wrong after update? Is it difficult to fix it?
And how stable the Arch's software is? Does it have a lot of bugs?

Mr. Alex;
Some of what you are asking has already been answered in this thread.

Arch uses the same libraries and apps that everyone else does---what's different is the configuration scripts, the package manager, and a few other utilities.

Keep in mind also that many of the issues that you see people discussing are really about something other than the distro---eg they might be discussing:
the desktop--eg KDE vs Gnome vs. XFCE or ....
a specific application
issues with specific hardware and drivers.
etc.

Here's a thought problem for you: RHEL is touted as the ultra-stable distro for enterprises. I've had more annoying little problems with RHEL than I ever had with Arch. (This is not in conflict with the statement that a properly setup box is more reliable than an Arch box setup by someone like me.----But, in the end, I dont CARE if RHEL is more reliable if it is continuing to annoy me..)

You **really** need to install Arch and try it out for yourself.

1 members found this post helpful.

I have been researching Arch Linux for weeks and I have heard nothing but SUPREMELY EXCELLENT comments about this distro. It is definitely on par with Gentoo in terms of customization except 95% easier to manage in Arch Linux. You compile from binaries instead of compiling directly from source (although you can compile from source just like Gentoo, except using AUR instead of Portage). What this means is basically install times are dwindled down exponentially making it quick,easy & a semi-newbie friendly distro. No more wasting hours,days,weeks or even months just to have a stable distro.

Lightweight
Fast
Bleeding-Edge (want to be up with the latest technology~?, this is it)
Rolling Release (never re-install your distro again, update ALL PACKAGES with 1 SIMPLE command "pacman -Syu")
Fantastic package manager (pacman)
absolutely GREAT documentation & community
TITATIUM SOLID STABLE (better than rock hard stable, thats how stable it is)
Independent-based distro (One of the original linux distros)
Works out-of-the-box with very little customization (dont be afraid, once you get the hang of this which usually takes no more than an hour to grasp the concept of pacman, you will unleash the power of the distro with flying colors)
MANY MANY applications suited for virtually anything you can think of
No matter what issue you are having, it is guaranteed to get fixed by reading the archwiki

I've tried Ubuntu, Linux Mint 9, CrunchBang, Debian, Sabayon, Fedora, Sidux, Salix OS, Zenwalk & even the *BSD's.

This distro is the King of Linux. This is Tux in disguise. This is the true Linux Experience.

1 members found this post helpful.

bruce*;
An eloquent post indeed.....just a few quibbles:

You don't "compile from binaries"---in Arch or anywhere else. A binary is typically a synonym for an executable, which is what you get after compiling from source.

Arch is like most distros in that it provides software as binaries using the package manager. The installation time is not "exponentially" less than other distros. Perhaps what you are referring to is that the initial install is very fast. But then, the initial install gives you essentially nothing. The total install time for equivalent functionality is probably pretty similar to other distros.

The most stable of all Linux distros? Probably not. "Stable enough"? For me , yes.

Works "out of the box"? NO--quite the opposite--you have to install and configure just about any feature you want.

Great documentation and community? Yes!!

To be sure, Arch is still my favorite. But nirvana? Not quite.....

That is going to depend a lot on your bandwidth for the recommended installation method, and still probably a lot slower to a resonably functioning system than most distros just because you are going to be downloading all those packages beyond the core system installed with the installer.

My time to get an Arch, Debian, or Kubuntu box set up the way I want isn't THAT drastically different. Kubuntu is a bit faster, but Arch and Debian are neck and neck. But it really comes down to package selection. I don't like a LOT of the default packages, so Arch & Debian installs are very easy for me, since I start with nothing and ONLY install what I want (I do netinstalls of testing on Debian, I don't do stable and I don't do full installs), whereas in Kubuntu it installs everything, and then I have to go back through and prune out all the software I didn't want, then install everything I do.

If you like the default application set and settings of a particular distro, then it will be SIGNIFICANTLY faster overall setup than Arch. If not, it might be a bit quicker, but having to completely customize after installed takes almost as long as just installing it the way you wanted to start with.

1 members found this post helpful.