I've read this at least a dozen of times, mostly on HN, and mostly by Archlinux advocates. Many people seem to ignore that Debian testing and Debian unstable are continuously updated (rolling releases). Please stop propagating false claims that taint Archlinux's community reputation.
Summary for people who like neither pictures nor tables:
* Debian Unstable (31k) has way more packages than Arch (9k without AUR), but the AUR (57k) has way more packages than Debian.
* The total number of packages that are at the latest upstream version are about equal for Debian (17k) and AUR (15k). Arch (without AUR) has way less total updated packages (7k).
* Arch has about the highest percentage of fully updated packages (85%), Debian is lower (72%), and the AUR is even lower (69%).
* NixOS rivals the AUR in number of total packages (53k), has a big margin in total latest upstream versions over everything else (24k, thus 30% more than Debian or Arch), but does not have as high as an update percentage (79%) as as Arch.
The numbers are not perfect because of split-packages and alternative packages (e.g. the AUR often has addtional `-git` variants), but they give a rough idea.
I used to run Debian testing and for a short time sid before switching Arch, and I had to reinstall them from 6 months at worst to two years at best, because of packages always breaking, system becoming unbootable after updates, etc...
In contrast, Arch has been both up-to-date and rock-solid - my current install has been carried over through three PCs since 2015.
I used to run Arch (2011-2014ish) on a personal server. I'd generally go a few months without updates, and large batches of updates were often painful, requiring manual steps... like the move to systemd, merging /bin and /usr/bin, and others I've forgot.
I have also had update issues with Ubuntu. There was a bug with Ubuntu 20.04 where a server would lose its default route when it had multiple network interfaces. And another bug where, after an update, network interfaces were renamed on a reboot rendering the server inaccessible. Is having a server with more than one network interface that unusual?
I have yet to find a distribution where updates are not problematic.
NixOS is designed so that updates won’t break the system in non-reversible ways. If an update didn’t work out well for you, you can always roll back to the previous version and withhold the update until you’re ready. I’ve used NixOS as a daily driver myself for years, and hadn’t needed a reinstall even once.
Never been brave enough to run Arch, but I've had Manjaro in a VM as a torrent/vpn/media server and it's been rock solid for like 4 years. I use ubuntu LTS for most things but I can't complain about Arch/Manjaro stability.
That's not how it works. Debian maintainers maintains packages from the very beginning of the process. They won't just wait until a package has entered stable.
Moreover, when comparing different distributions, it would make more sense to have a closer look at the release process rather than compare how they label their packages. Since Debian tests its packages for a longer period of time than Arch, Debian testing should be just as stable as Arch stable.
I think we're using the word "maintains" differently. Packages in Sid have no guarantees that they'll work, no security team, and no support system if you get stuck. Sid isn't meant to be used as a daily driver, and if your computer stops working that will be expected in Sid but a gigantic bug in Arch.
> Debian testing should be just as stable as Arch stable
Sure, but how up-to-date is Debian testing when compared to Arch?
> Packages in Sid have no guarantees that they'll work
Guarantee is a strong word. Can Arch guarantee this? Occasional breakage is bound to happen with bleeding-edge rolling releases.
> no security team
Weaker guarantees than stable, but that doesn't mean Debian doesn't handle security issues in unstable or testing. It'll be too late if they start dealing with security issues once a package enters stable.
That shouldn't matter much for people who're willing to use Arch as a daily driver.
> if your computer stops working that will be expected in Sid but a gigantic bug in Arch
A gigantic bug but still happens nonetheless.
> Sure, but how up-to-date is Debian testing when compared to Arch?
According to repology, Debian testing has twice the number of latest packages than Arch official [1]. Considering that packages of higher importance tend to be more actively maintained, I'd assume that Debian won't be significantly behind the latest release for packages that exist in both Arch official and Debian.
I've run it on all my desktop and laptop computers for 20 years and it's fine. However, the only package I upgrade automatically is Chrome. I do a full upgrade one or twice a year, and in the meantime I only upgrade packages as needed. The whole point of versioned dependencies is that you don't have to adhere to one particular snapshot.
I'm a fan of both operating systems, but I have had a much more pleasant having updated versions of packages by default in Arch than by heading over to testing or unstable on Debian - in other words, the newer packages on Arch felt far more robust than the unstable packages on Debian. This leaves aside the fact that stable Debian was far more stable than Arch for me.
By Arch standards Debian “unstable” or “testing” would be branded “stable.” If you can choose Arch stable for normal use, then you can do the same for Debian unstable too.
Words can mean different things in different contexts - “stable” and “unstable” in Debian refer to whether or not the major version numbers of included packages are going to change, not to how buggy they are.
> If security or stability are at all important for you: install stable. period. This is the most preferred way.
> If you are a new user installing to a desktop machine, start with stable. Some of the software is quite old, but it's the least buggy environment to work in.
> Testing has more up-to-date software than Stable, and it breaks less often than Unstable. But when it breaks, it might take a long time for things to get rectified. Sometimes this could be days and it could be months at times. It also does not have permanent security support.
> Unstable has the latest software and changes a lot. Consequently, it can break at any point. However, fixes get rectified in many occasions in a couple of days [...]
I've read this at least a dozen of times, mostly on HN, and mostly by Archlinux advocates. Many people seem to ignore that Debian testing and Debian unstable are continuously updated (rolling releases). Please stop propagating false claims that taint Archlinux's community reputation.