No, it just looks like satire (or alternatively pure insanity) to anyone still having a working brain cell.

That’s my point. A version upgrade having issues would have forced you to do it by now.

I can’t be the only one who had Arch on a system before getting a smartphone

But that issue is solved for many years now. Although it makes a certain kind of sense: a lot of the Arch hate and memes causes we to question if that person has actually used Arch in years. So a lot of those ideas may be indeed ancient experiences surviving purely in memes and stories.

Manjaro which is less stable than Arch in my experience.

That’s because their whole concept is bullshit. Delaying updates for two weeks would make sense, when they actually used that time frame for testing and to fix bugs before release. In reality they just delay everything without sense, so you actually get the same bugs, just 2 weeks later because the fixes are also delayed.

And then they add access to the AUR (by default even, where Arch warns people about the risks) which assumes an up-to-date system, not one lagging 2 weeks behind. Which is a big shiny invitation to dependency hell.

Sadly those benchmarks only tell me that they did test only two file systems on LUKS…

I’m always scared to upgrade to a new Debian release and the process is always painful.

At least in my personal experience this is one of the big triggers for distro hopping. Most of the people I know that stuck to one distro for years and years are on a rolling release.

Any anything that changes barely is more often stuck with the bugs that still slip through for years.

If everyone understood the actual meaning of “stable” and that there are up- and downsides you have to weigh against each other, we would lose so many memes.

I was too lazy for scripting the update to check the news and just get a mail when the update has issues… or should get one.

In reality I check if the email process still works once every blue moon because I didn’t get one from a failed update in years.

I think you can get problems once you are a full release cycle behind the last supported one.

Funnily enough it’s mostly an issue with mirrors and signing keys, so basically the same fix Arch users need if they are behind for many months: update the packages for keys and mirrors first, everyting else afterwards.

Well… because of longer testing periods and a lot of stuff never even considered until stale the stable distros indeed have less bugs. The ones that still slip through however will basically not get fixes for years.

On the other hand I have seen a lot of bugs on Arch… but I usually don’t care and just assume (rightfully so in 99% of the cases) that they get fixed within hours.

I wonder how many Arch haters have actually used Arch and ever ran into a breaking issue.

A lot… they install it, screw up because they didn’t bother to read the instructions, then did the usual… a new install.

Those who pass the first basic barrier to just chroot into the system and fix a simple mistake or roll back a package for the few hours it takes to get fixed instead of starting fresh usually stay for a long time…

In fact with the people I know there is a correlation between either “oh, I don’t bother to fix anything and just do a fresh install (that idea is especially persistent in Windows users)” or “there’s a big distro upgrade that had issues” and distro hopping. Once you settled on a rolling release and learned the basics in terms of fixing stuff the urge to hop yet another time vanishes for many.

Same, but with an ancient Nvidia card even…

Just google the term

Yes, please do.

The actual notion of “security through obscurity” (that will surely come up on Google if their AI bullshittery hasn’t screwed up completely…) for Linux is insane because open source is the polar opposite. By that definition proprietary code is actually much more linked to the concept.

The often more unprecise and colloquial usage I thus assumed you were using doesn’t apply either, for the reasons I summarised.

So which imaginary definition of “security through obscurity” are you using and assuming that it will come up on Google when none of the real ones makes any sense?

You are right. I don’t know what your personal definition of “security through obscurity” is as it’s very obviously not matching actual reality.

There was never an actual notion of “security through obscurity”. LInux runs the complete Internet and most coporate server infrastructure. That’s where the actual money is.

People hallucinating that Linux is something obscure simply have no clue and confused their home desktop for real computing. Windows desktops are constantly targeted not because they are -unlike Linux- so wide-spread but because they are already insanely insecure. They are the low hanging fruit where you can cobble together some cheap shit and will still find million of PCs vulnerable. If you want to find a Linux comparison it’s definitely not server or desktops but cheap IoT devices not having seen an update (or any security to speak of) for many years.

For reference: We are talking about guests in a virtual pc escaping it’s container. That’s not something obcure. That’s basically all cloud hoster’s whole business model, thus the reason Google pays a lot of money for finding such exploits.

(heavy?)

And right there lies your misconception. Newer software is not heavier by definition. Quite the contrary it often gets more efficient because of constant optimisation and improvements.

The concept of newer software using up ressouces like crazy is the scam used by corporate OS’ so you buy new hardware constantly.