“Is Arch Linux stable?”, explaining Linux with Rolling Release vs Stable Release

[0:00] Is Arch Linux stable? Well, Arch Linux is never stable, except when it is. You see, Arch Linux is a rolling release distro, and rolling release distros

[0:09] are never stable, except when they are. The word stable is the problem here. English is a funny language. We have something called polysemantic words, a word that is spelled the same, sounds the same, and can even be used in a sentence exactly the same, but have multiple different meanings, and we use context to understand the meaning. Now, stable is a polysemantic word, but when it comes to Linux distros and really all software, unfortunately, context doesn’t help because the meaning can mean multiple different things, even when said exactly the same way, and the context isn’t enough at times. For example, this software is stable. This distro is not stable. This app is stable. All of these statements are accurate and inaccurate simultaneously based on

[0:54] two different meanings. This is why I don’t like the word stable used for one of those meanings. Tech is known for having tons of jargon, abbreviations, mashups, or even an excessive use of acronyms. But in this case, the word stable means different things to different people, even though everyone is using the same sentences. And it’s usually, it depends on who’s saying it, a user or a developer. So to answer the question, is Arch Linux stable? Well, yes and no.

[1:21] Let’s start off with why it’s no. Back in the day, some developer decided it was a good idea to use the term stable to mean not changing.

[1:28] Debian stable is an example of this used for a distro. Debian stable changes very rarely, only to fix critical bugs and security issues. If you want the latest version of, well, anything, that’s not the distro to use because it will pretty much never be fully up to date. If you want a distro that rarely moves and you don’t have to deal with upgrading

[1:49] it for years other than the occasional bug fix then Debian stable might be for you let’s take a look at the definitions of the word stable there’s a lot of them so we’re going to use a couple.

[1:59] First 1b not subject to sudden or extreme change or fluctuation basically not changing the second one is consistent or dependable.

[2:10] Such as stability of the system. So this word means both of those things. So depending on who you’re talking to, this could be applying to whether it’s a stable release, whether the system is stable itself or et cetera.

[2:23] And maybe sometimes even both at the same time, it can be confusing. Arch Linux is a rolling release distro. A rolling release distro is like a conveyor belt of updates. It’s always moving. You get the latest software kernel updates and features as soon as they’re ready. In addition to Arch Linux, OpenSUSE Tumbleweed is another great example of a rolling release. And there are many more. Sounds exciting, right? You get cutting-edge tools, bleeding-edge features. It’s all right there. Why wouldn’t you want to use it?

[2:51] Well, there are some trade-offs. It’s called bleeding-edge for a reason. At times, it can be painful. There are times where updates can break things or require the user to do what is called manual intervention, which typically means the user will need to track announcements from the distro about the these kinds of things likely need to use documentation to see what they need to do and then run commands in the terminal to address known issues that they might run into and sometimes more. Rolling release distros are cool and have many benefits but they’re not really

[3:22] intended for beginners or anyone who is looking for a “it just works” distro. Stable release distros are more of a slow and steady approach. Ubuntu, Linux Mint, Zorin OS, Debian, OpenSUSE Leap, and others fit this label. These distros lock in a set of software versions at release and prioritize reliability over shiny new features. Updates do come, but they’re more about fixing bugs and patching security holes than adding new features.

[3:49] Now, there are updates that happen for new features, but these can range from taking six months between the types of updates or even two to three years, depending on the distro. So stable releases, it’s more about stability and what you can expect from it rather than stability of the system itself. Though, with that said, because they don’t change that much,

[4:09] that usually also means they’re fairly stable in terms of the stability of the system. So let’s go back to the original question. Is Arch Linux stable? I said the answer can also be yes. And this depends on the configuration of the system, how the user interacts with it, how much stuff they install to it, whether they use the AUR or not,

[4:29] and if they do use the AUR, which things they use from the AUR and so on. You will probably see someone online in a subreddit or a forum in the Discord server for TuxDigital, even on my podcast, Destination Linux, because Ryan is a fan of Arch, you’ll see someone say something like, Arch Linux is totally stable and I’ve used it for years without problems. These people are likely saying something that is 100% true, but more often than not, there’s a bit more to the story that they aren’t mentioning. Not that they’re choosing to mislead anyone, but there’s just a bit of an accidental bias that can happen, especially in tech, but really in anything. In some cases, there are people who claim Arch Linux is completely stable with no issues, but forget to mention that they do not change anything away from the defaults. not customizing anything.

[5:18] Ryan will be an example of that. This will not be the same experience for someone who wants to tinker with their system. And then the other times, someone will say that it’s completely stable because they use minimal tiling window manager that doesn’t come with a lot of moving parts and just does the fundamentals of what they want. So fewer moving parts means fewer ways it can break and that sort of thing. So this will not be the same experience as someone who wants all the bells and whistles.

[5:43] And then there’s people who say it’s perfectly stable that never use the AUR and just stick to the official packages in the main repos. This means what they use receives more testing. And this will not be the same experience for people who hear about how great the AUR is, but they’re not warned about the AUR and that it’s a repo that basically

[6:03] anyone can put anything they want, so the level of quality varies widely. Ultimately, yes, Arch Linux can be stable if it is managed well by the user. But if you’re someone who wants a “it just works” distro and things are taken care of for you by the distro team rather than you, then that’s not really the target demographic of Arch Linux.

[6:25] OpenSUSE Tumbleweed is a rolling release distro that is more friendly to that goal of “it just works” because they have a Snapshot system so users can roll back if things break. but it isn’t a, “it just works” distro. It’s just more friendly to that goal. Though I will say that Snapshots can be added to Arch but that’s another thing the user would have to set up and maintain and also know that they can do that and then have to learn how to do that and that sort of thing.

[6:53] Rolling release and stable release are not the only options. There’s also something called a cutting edge release which is where you’ll find distros like Fedora Linux. Fedora sits somewhere in between. Faster updates than a traditional stable release, but with testing to keep things from breaking too often. Fedora thrives on being an early adopter distro and also an innovative distro. Even though Fedora is not a full rolling release distro, Fedora is often the first distro to implement some cool new tech because they like to push the envelope. This is one of the reasons I’m a fan of Fedora, but this also can result in some uncomfortable situations for some users, depending on what the user needs from the system. So while I like Fedora and I use it a lot.

[7:35] That’s one of the reasons why I don’t put it in the “it just works” category you may have also heard of immutable distros and atomic distros and they are very cool but also are for a particular type of user who wants frequent updates high level of system stability and also not that interested in customizing their system much an immutable distro means that the system is basically unchangeable now some of them give you the ability to have your own home section user section but also have the core files be unchangeable that some distros do that but for the majority of the time immutable just means you can’t change it not that they don’t change often like a stable release but they simply cannot be changed in Linux you can usually do whatever you want so in theory some of the immutable distros like SteamOS for example you could customize things like with the dev mode but when you make any of these changes and your system updates all of those changes will be lost once it’s updated. This is because immutable distros update the entire system with a full replacement, at least with the core files in terms of applications and stuff like that may stay. But a lot of the times, if it’s an appliance style distribution, which most immutable distros are, then it’s going to be replacing everything. Now, atomic distros is not really about the structure of the system layout, but more about how they are updated.

[8:58] So atomic distros could be immutable but also not be it’s a little complicated i might make another video about the difference between atomic and immutable and overall but just to say this is a different kind of update mechanism rather

[9:13] than the layout and style so what does this all mean for you if you’re someone who loves having the latest and greatest tools and the new shiny or maybe you’re a developer who needs the newest libraries, rolling release distros might be perfect for you.

[9:28] Be prepared for potential hiccups because that constant stream of updates can sometimes lead to instability. On the flip side, if you want a system that is reliable and dependable, then stable releases are a safe bet.

[9:42] I still don’t like the term stable release here. I would prefer they call it a static release because that’s more accurate to what they mean. But technically, based on the definition, it is also true to use the word stable. It’s not an incorrect way of doing it but i would prefer static anyway these are the distros you can set up and forget most of the time with fewer surprises along the way because they update much less frequently

[10:06] here’s the bottom line rolling releases are exciting but they demand attention and maintenance stable releases are reliable but they might not scratch the itch for cutting edge tech or getting the latest and greatest of whatever software you want now thankfully we do have Flatpaks and AppImages and even Snaps that can kind of mitigate this issue, but it’s still possible that it could be there depending on what you need.

[10:30] And while both have their pros and cons, the right choice, it depends on you. Are you a tinkerer or are you a set it and forget it type of user?

[10:38] So that’s something you have to decide. So what do you think? Are you rolling with the bleeding edge or sticking to something more stable? Let me know in the comments. And don’t forget to hit that like button if this helped clear things up for you. And as far as the people who are very curious about Arch Linux and really wanting to get into it and you’re a beginner, don’t use it for a beginner. If you’re brand new to Linux and you’re not a person who wants to tinker.

[11:01] Then there’s a lot of other options. And I made a video right here you can check out that tells you what those options are. And Arch Linux is cool and you can try it out if you want to, but it’s like a you know do it at your own risk you know experience may vary kind of thing so I suggest checking out this video instead.