That’s why I switched to Arch. Every stack overflow article to fix little problems with sound or screen tearing or whatever was a 1 line fix for arch or 4 to 6 lines for Ubuntu.
I work in a stem center as a computer science tutor and it has happened to myself as well as a tutee and a fellow tutor. We all moved because keeping up with a rolling release gets tiring when you have projects with deadlines. They call it the bleeding edge because it has a tendency to cut you.
I still love arch and there’s parts of it I miss. Fedora just has a tendency to break less often.
Maybe it’s just ubuntu being bad, but I’ve had way fewer issues on arch after switching to it. I had like 4 issues where my pc just wouldn’t boot in the 3 years I was running Ubuntu, and I’ve had I think 1 in 4 years on arch.
Granted I’ve gotten more comfortable with linux in that time and have gotten better at fixing problems.
yeah I’ve had a lot of problems with ubuntu. our arch problems mostly stem from an update breaking compatibility for tools we use for things like the oscilloscopes in labs. fedora just works most of the time though
I think Arch is more stable nowadays, but I definitely needed to switch from Arch to Fedora back in 2014 after NetworkManager kept breaking my wifi. I wanted a bleeding-edge, customizable distro that’s still batteries-included and stable.
I mean that’s true for a lot of things, even if it took effort to learn how to do something it can make doing certain other things easier. Like learning to use the command line is certainly more effort than not doing it, but it also makes so many things so much easier once you can. Or learning to ride a bicycle takes effort, but once you know it’s way easier than walking to the store.
arch is easier if you have some linux skills though, because of the awesome wiki
Did you just say that <whatever> is easy if you’re already good at it?
no i meant arch becomes easier than beginner distros when you have the base knowledge
That’s why I switched to Arch. Every stack overflow article to fix little problems with sound or screen tearing or whatever was a 1 line fix for arch or 4 to 6 lines for Ubuntu.
There is a reason why people switch from Arch to Fedora.
Does that actually happen?
I work in a stem center as a computer science tutor and it has happened to myself as well as a tutee and a fellow tutor. We all moved because keeping up with a rolling release gets tiring when you have projects with deadlines. They call it the bleeding edge because it has a tendency to cut you.
I still love arch and there’s parts of it I miss. Fedora just has a tendency to break less often.
Maybe it’s just ubuntu being bad, but I’ve had way fewer issues on arch after switching to it. I had like 4 issues where my pc just wouldn’t boot in the 3 years I was running Ubuntu, and I’ve had I think 1 in 4 years on arch.
Granted I’ve gotten more comfortable with linux in that time and have gotten better at fixing problems.
yeah I’ve had a lot of problems with ubuntu. our arch problems mostly stem from an update breaking compatibility for tools we use for things like the oscilloscopes in labs. fedora just works most of the time though
I think Arch is more stable nowadays, but I definitely needed to switch from Arch to Fedora back in 2014 after NetworkManager kept breaking my wifi. I wanted a bleeding-edge, customizable distro that’s still batteries-included and stable.
Because they are too lazy to read the wiki?
I mean that’s true for a lot of things, even if it took effort to learn how to do something it can make doing certain other things easier. Like learning to use the command line is certainly more effort than not doing it, but it also makes so many things so much easier once you can. Or learning to ride a bicycle takes effort, but once you know it’s way easier than walking to the store.
Good, you got my point.