so a common claim I see made is that arch is up to date than Debian but harder to maintain and easier to break. Is there a good sort of middle ground distro between the reliability of Debian and the up-to-date packages of arch?

  • aleq@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    3 days ago

    For private use? Hot take, but Arch. It’s easy to maintain and not easy to break at all. I think I spend zero time on maintenance other than running package updates. I only reinstall when I get a new computer.

    (I say for private use only because you’ll be getting weird looks from people if you use arch on a server in a professional setting, and it might break if you try to update it after five years of not doing it since there aren’t any “releases” to group big changes - in practice I run arch on my home server too with no issues)

    • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Save yourself some trouble and run something for servers. You can even setup automatic updates with reboots so you can set it up and forget. I did that with a Debian machine and I forgot about it for a terrifyingly long time. It just auto updated and patched itself when new updates hit.

      • JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        Same. I checked on my Debian VPS the other day after many months of negligence and, sure enough, everything was up to date and secure thanks to unattended-upgrades with the reboot option enabled.