On Sun, 22 Mar 2020 at 14:03, <leoutation@gmx.fr> wrote:
Before Arch I used Fedora for 7 years. I found Fedora far more stable than Arch when upgrading to a new Fedora version 3 months after release when most bugs have been fixed. With Arch there is always something that does not work properly and then days or weeks later it starts working again.
Hi Did you installed Arch in the right way? The only Arch installation method is here. https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Installation_guide
Yes, that is what I used.
Since 22 years, i use Linux. After redhat, suse, gentoo, fedora, debian stable,testing and sid, i went to Arch. I get rare problems with Arch, less than with other distributions (except with venerable debian/stable)
Like I said above, " It is not Arch's fault, rather it results from its KISS principle of making minimal or no changes to upstream packages so you get all the issues from upstream." I will say the obvious that different people have a different experience of Arch (and other distros) as it depends on what they use it for and what packages they have installed, as well as on the hardware. When I moved from Fedora to Arch I continued using the same packages and had more issues in Arch, not with Arch but with third party packages. I never had an issue with Arch software like pacman, etc. :-) In other words, I totally believe you when you say you have less problems in Arch but that does not disprove that I have more in Arch, it is just that you use a different set of packages on different hardware! That said Arch is far more reliable than Ubuntu non-lts! Some examples: yesterday I had to kill Firefox because it got stuck with one core at 100%. In Arch problems with FF come and go. In Fedora I also sometimes had problems with FF but far less than in Arch. Another example, Conky. There was an upstream bug when displaying used RAM, which was fixed in upstream git but months passed and upstream would not release a new version. So after months of wait I got pissed off with this RAM display issue and installed the AUR version of conky. In Fedora in a similar situation typically the Fedora packager would create a new version of the package with the patch. I don't know if that happened in the specific case of conky, I have not checked, I am just talking about what typically happened. Arch has the policy of not patching upstream code unless needed to fit the Arch way of doing things. That is one of the reasons why I said that Fedora is more stable than Arch. That said, Fedora 13 for me was an horror story, I had lots of kernel crashes!
To become happy Arch user: First, very important: use linux-lts all and "lts" or "still" packages you can find. Non lts kernels *are not* stable. Then, don't update each day. Then, when you do something, you have to know what you are doing.
Yes, a while back I was having lots of problems with the standard kernel and then I started using the lts kernel, but sometimes the lts does not work and I switch to the standard one! But mostly for the past year and half I have used the lts kernel. I use the still version of Libreoffice, which is perfectly fine for me as I don't need the latest features.