Why do people use standart distros when rolling-release distros exist? Srsly...

Why do people use standart distros when rolling-release distros exist? Srsly, it's so wrong when you can't install a software because some faggot doesn't compile it for a new version of a distro. This why Arch is a bless.

yeah but then you update and your entire OS breaks and now you've got to try and fix it even though you're a user and not a programmer

1. Almost doesn't happen when *you* don't fuck up your Gentoo stable.
2. Fixes to unbreak such problems almost always require just a litlle sysadmin monkey work, no programming.
3. Many mitigation techniques exist. Rollback to last nights lvm / btrfs / vm snapshot if you need to or whatever.
4. "Users" as in the undereducated masses can only handle Android at most.

Yes, standard-release has a tendency to break after upgrades, I agree. Doesn't happen on Arch tho.

Or just use Windows ?

Even worse. WIndows is for people who dont respect themselves.

better then linux which lacks half or programs and has if it has any they dont have gui

WHY DON'T PEOPLE JUST RUN NIGHTLY BUILDS OF EVERYTHING?

STABILITY? WHO NEEDS THAT SHIT WHEN I CAN SPEND 3 HOURS REINSTALLING EVERYTHING ANY TIME A NIGHTLY BUILD WIPES MY SYSTEM AND RAPES MY MOM!

>update breaks something
>install older version from package cache
wow that was difficult

> Why do people use rolling release distros when "release" distros exist?
I want to ask you the same. I have my server set up behind the firewall. Why would I want to get potential issues by upgrading every piece of software to a new version? Some software breaks config compatibility between versions, the most notable example for me is Squid.
Of course, if you like it, you'll get the additional job security, but I'm not into that "newer is always better" fad.

>better then linux
how?

*not this guy*
OS battles are fucking useless since every popular one has at least SOME advantages compared to the others. I've used loonix for like 5 hours and it was ubuntu so I can't speak about its pros and cons, but windows offers greater variety of software and games, for example.

>you're a user and not a programmer
Wait, what? Average users use Linux? For what purpose?

/t-thread?

>I've used loonix for like 5 hours
>but windows offers greater variety of software and games
k

are you retarded or this is bait?

Because stability and reliability matters more in production than that latest version of mpv that plays your chinese cartoons a little better.

Installing any Linux distro with a net installer on a ssd takes like genuinely 5-10 minutes.

Last night I was taking down files from a random server with 200 mb/s and that just because their server sucks.

/thread

A lot of effort that does not need to be done on a proper non-rolling distro. Sometimes people need uptime more than the cutting edge.

Are you kidding? Nothing breaks more than Arch. It's a tech support simulator after all so that people can get exotic errors that are non-trivial to fix. Arch is for people who like to recreationally tinker with dependencies and config files.

This
>Installing any Linux distro with a net installer on a ssd takes like genuinely 5-10 minutes.
But you also need to restore backups of the files and reinstall all applications.

Are you dumb? My mother use Ubuntu because she contantly have problems when she use Windows. Linux is easier to use for average users than Windows is. Updates and so on can be done with cron jobs, most people just want something to surf the internet, read emails and watch movies.

Yea but backups take 2 minutes. I mean it takes like 15 minutes to backup entire ssd on a old school optical drive at 105 + mb/s... backup to a secondary ssd is faster.

+ I have around 500 mb/s upload on my internet provider cloud space.

>you're a user and not a programmer
THE PROGRAMMING PENGUIN

Because Linux for desktop is still a meme, so normal people use it on servers.

this.
But looks like FreeBSD is a better choice for server purposes.
Really, if not for RedHat and SUSE - GNOO/Linox would already be dead because of its uselessness.

This

>Are you kidding? Nothing breaks more than Arch. It's a tech support simulator after all so that people can get exotic errors that are non-trivial to fix.
You haven't used Arch, have you?

>>Antergos
Bliss of using Arch without the hassle of the breaks

Debian offers the best of both worlds.
My Debian servers are stable.
My Debian desktops are rolling.

Yes I have. It's the most buggy shit that is possible to download. With the least helpful community on the internet. Any question is answered with "read the wiki". I have read every single word in the wiki, but that does not solve 99% of the problems people encounter. The hardware support is shit, when I installed it I had no access to neither wifi or ethernet drivers on my toshiba laptop. Any other linux distribution have both installed by default. And I needed it to install arch Arch is trash... Eventually I figured out that I have better things to do than to use a timesink OS like Arch and fix weird errors everytime I do something.

Try Source Mage GNU/Linux, true bleeding edge

Sorry, but it sounds to me like you're just a brainlet. Arch isn't for you. I haven't had any of those problems with Arch myself. It's rock solid, stable, and the community is full of people with expert knowledge.

>I haven't had any of those problems with Arch myself.

This is a fucking lie and an attempt to huble brag about how you are some sort of genious.

>and the community is full of people with expert knowledge.

It's filled with edgy children who believe they are experts because they manage to fix tons of problems that they need to fix to be able to run the buggy mess. But it's the least helpful community on the internet.

Retard

fuck off edgelord

You're either seriously retarded if you struggled that much with Arch, or you're just trolling. It doesn't take a genius to use it. It just works fine, the wiki is simple to follow, and in the rare cases manual intervention will be needed with an update there'll be news about it on the main site and on the mailing lists.

t. AUR maintainer

I used arch on my laptop for about a year, it works perfectly for me.
Did you consider that maybe you aren't as skilled as you think?
>noob can't figure out basic stuff
>says everyone else is lying
like clockwork

Don't have problems with any other linux distro and arch constantly fails all the time unless you are some sort of computer expert apparently. It's like trying to rappel out the window instead of using the elevator like a normal person. No reason to use a timesink OS like arch that fails all the time and demands that you are an expert on the OS to be able to have it function most days.

Sorry, not him, and I had literally ZERO issues with Arch. Once you're done setting it up, which takes 15 minutes for a base system, and about 1 hour for a complete system, it's simply works and isn't anymore unstable than Ubuntu, really.

Please don't tell me you're one of those autists who think arch is actually decent.

All chunked out packages like -common and -data are merged into one.
All documentation and header files are included in the package as well, bloating file size again.
All packages are built with all compile flags turned on, boosting up memory usage and forming extra unnecessary dependencies that drag in even more of these bloated packages that you didn't want.

The *only* thing arch has going for it is the AUR. It's pretty frickin' neato. But that doesn't make up for the distro hosting it being hot trash.

I mean strictly speaking he's not wrong. There's so much shovelware on Windows it's not even funny. You'll never find classics like Domestic Dog Simulator or Babby's 57th Hello World in ASP.NET or SuperCool AudioTrim Ultra on Linux.

I use both of those distros, and couldn't agree more. Arch get's a bad rep from overzealous noobs. It's just as stable as anything else out there.

>Implying 99% of the other distros don't do the same.
Give it up, Gentoofag. And buy some decent hardware while you're at it.