this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2023
32 points (92.1% liked)

Linux

8064 readers
65 users here now

Welcome to c/linux!

Welcome to our thriving Linux community! Whether you're a seasoned Linux enthusiast or just starting your journey, we're excited to have you here. Explore, learn, and collaborate with like-minded individuals who share a passion for open-source software and the endless possibilities it offers. Together, let's dive into the world of Linux and embrace the power of freedom, customization, and innovation. Enjoy your stay and feel free to join the vibrant discussions that await you!

Rules:

  1. Stay on topic: Posts and discussions should be related to Linux, open source software, and related technologies.

  2. Be respectful: Treat fellow community members with respect and courtesy.

  3. Quality over quantity: Share informative and thought-provoking content.

  4. No spam or self-promotion: Avoid excessive self-promotion or spamming.

  5. No NSFW adult content

  6. Follow general lemmy guidelines.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
MigratingtoLemmy@lemmy.world
32
Why does the Steam Deck use Arch Linux? (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 year ago by BearPear@lemmy.world to c/linux@lemmy.world
17 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Please understand that I haven't tried or installed Arch Linux yet. From what I understand by reading and watching related videos, Arch is often breaks and a lot of time is required to fix issues. But I have also read comments from arch users who claim that arch has only crashed or caused them problems only a couple of times in a year.

Wouldn't a stable or non rolling release distro be a great choice for the Steam Deck?? Also, how frequently do the packages get updated on steam os?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Zozano@aussie.zone 30 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

SteamOS is Arch-based. Arch as a distros is extremely bare-bones. The main difference between all base-distros is how they manage their packages.

Sub-distros may opt to change how the package manager works; Manjaro delays updates until everything has been verified to be working and not likely to break anything. Yet, it is still Arch based.

There's nothing about a base-distro that makes it inherently unstable. Arch is extremely reliable, depending on what you need it for.

[–] I_like_cats@lemmy.one 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Manjaro delays updates until everything has been verified to be working and not likely to break anything Yeah that's what Manjaro thinks they're doing (or would like to do) in reality the packages depend on specific versions of eachother so things actually break more often than base arch IMO. Please look at the list here as to why you shouldn't reccomend Manjaro to new Linux users. Their management is really bad and preventable issues happen a lot

[–] Zozano@aussie.zone 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Manjaro isn't great, but for a new Linux user, who doesn't tinker, it's quite reliable. Manjaro avoided the Grub crash earlier this year which every other Arch-based distro failed to boot from.

My recommendation is Endeavour, but having the Pamac Manjaro GUI makes things a lot less daunting for those trying Linux for the first time.

[–] AngryDemonoid@lemmy.lylapol.com 4 points 1 year ago

I learned this the hard way. Started with Manjaro because it was "easier", and I had nothing but trouble. Switched to Arch, and it's been smooth sailing.