Chrispynut (has to be voted the best signature of the year), I understand your point, and agree somewhat, especially your last sentence, but I point to exhibit A; all the newbie help posts on the forum.
Plus, you forgot to mention, Arch is a rolling-release. You can visualize that with the newbie sitting at the top of the rolling release, roller-coaster, before the cart descends into an update breakage of screaming confusion. It is all subjective, but I never recommend Arch for newbies. Linux Mint has good training wheels, then you get off the bike and upgrade to Arch.
Mint's been my goto suggestion (and a personal favourite of mine), but things still break on there and far more expectantly. Atleast with Arch, breaks are expected.
I wouldn't recommend without warning and it would be for the more adventurous newb, but there are certainly advantages to the lack of complacency with Arch as opposed to Mint. Something breaks on Arch it's "that was inconvenient timing", something breaks on Mint it's "OMG everything's dead, what did I do wrong, my computer's useless, I have no idea what to do, panic panic panic".
Beyond that, Mint's stability comes at the cost of restriction, breaking through those restrictions to customize more than a little and the increased stability's out the window.
More options to allow for better fit to the individual. I have hopes for the immutable distros to offer Windows/Mac like stability/reliability without "going to the dark-side".
Do any of you ever run just plain old vanilla Arch installed by the wiki? It's as stable as any other rolling-release distribution out there. Many of us have used it for years, some for that very reason.
What? Did you think Garuda developers would use an inferior, unstable base?
I don't think Arch itself is unstable, but from the issues I have seen over the years, it is the outside app maintainers. A lot of that has to do with Arch constantly updating and there is no 'pause' like in Debian and other distros between updates to catch breakages, or play catch-up, so issues occur more frequently.
I am a big fan of rolling-releases, but I also know how to strap on a tool belt.
Edit to add: Manjaro tries to put a 'pause' in Arch to catch the issues, but those of us who have used that distro know how well that works.
The Archlinux home page lists the various items and workarounds and it has only gotten better over time.
It is users that tend to break things or ignore warnings. And that is true for any distribution. Is Debian less stable because of what Mint or Ubuntu users do with it? Even Debian Testing, which I ran for years, is more stable than its users.
Developers adopting any of the major distribution package bases might add to the perceived instability. Take, for example the recent Pamac breakage. Who was responsible for that? Arch? Garuda? Or was it the Pamac developer and/or maintainer that wasn't paying attention to what was planned?
Ya'll be barking up the wrong tree. I mean, I have read these same arguments here as in the Manjaro or other distributions that depend on Arch's stability. It seems a lot like biting the hand that feeds you (collectively). But you know where I never read it? From knowledgeable users In the Arch forums.
Putting all the blame on the users is not valid. I am not saying the users don't create their own messes now and again, but there is plenty of Arch updates and maintainer examples to justify my statement.
You can take the recent KDE update push from Arch that caused all the 'libicuiXXX' errors that popped up on the forum in the last few days. It caused several issues with various apps, leaving the user not able to update. That was not a user created problem. Thankfully Nico jumped in and saved the day there.
Did you happen to stumble upon that in the Arch forums...or just here?
Is libicu* even an Arch package? Or is it something the user or distribution installed? All I can find is an AUR pkg with a similar name. Nothing in the normal Arch repositories. I ask because I run Arch + KDE (in it right now), and I see no file or pkg by that name anywhere on my system, nor did I have any such related problems.
Yes, now I do. Thank you for providing actual information. This is very interesting, as, in reading down the list of applications that make use of it, I note that I have several installed and running.
That begs the question of why my very vanilla Arch+ KDE was not impacted/affected in any way. It has been totally business-as-usual. There could be several reasons:
I do not have any "appmenu" packages installed. And I note the majority of them are AUR packages. I found only one in the actual Arch repos. Arch Linux - Package Search
I may have updated subsequent to patching of anything impacted that I have installed.
So it still appears that Arch is a stable base. The update to icu broke AUR packages, not Arch ones. And that will happen from time to time. But breakage has been so rare for me running Arch--I mean broken Arch packages, not something easily pinned or rolled-back--that I remember only one that impacted me much. Networkmanager. Frigging networkmanager. But that was half-expected, as it had always been a fitfull application in Debian Testing, too.
So I'm sticking by Arch. And I still say that Garuda's developers would not and did not use an inferior, unstable package base for their distribution. Arch is as stable as any rolling-release out there. To call Arch anything else, is to insult Garuda's developers.
@RodneyCK , for the most part I was not replying to you. I was replying to the people that stated and/or inferred that Arch is unstable. I don't recall you doing so.
My hackles always raise when someone does something like that. I saw plenty of that in the Manjaro forums, which I used to consider my home. Enough that I have never bothered to visit them since the last major forum breakage. I've seen it here, in these forums, a few times, too--in other threads, usually posted by people unfamiliar with it, who go by heresay.
But the whole libicu* stuff got me wondering, and that always requires further inspection. That's what I did with appmenu--I stated what I had discovered since it was pointed out to me that it was icu that provides libicu*
So please, I'm not trying to siderail anything or imply that Garuda is unstable. Help threads often devolve into discussion threads after a solution is found. Don't make my contribution anything but that. That was not what was intended.
To me is good to see high level discussion where divergent opinions can talk, and improve with it. The truth is people do break things, no matter if users,developers. But having people engaged enough to fix it ... Is what "stable" means to me.
Unfortunately, this is not a discussion thread, it is a help request. I rarely ever close a thread for wandering off topic, but...
The first response on this thread was a request for the OP's full specs. The OP has not done as requested by a moderator. The OP hasn't even logged back in since they made this help request several days ago.
In all reality this was likely a post from a drive by distro hopper who has likely already wandered off to the fabled land of far greener pastures.
This thread has wandered way off topic and has become rather pointless without feedback from the threads originator. I will be locking this thread until the Original Poster (OP) returns and posts the computers inxi -Faz output.
The OP can add this and further information to the Opening Post by using the edit button on the first post on this thread.