1. I like having the upstream versions of software instead of it being patched by package maintainers.
2. I like having up to date software. It means that issue trackers for software I use are relevant
3. Doing distro upgrades when they end support never works gracefully and i have to completely reinstall. I’d rather just use a rolling release which in practice works and is supported indefinitely
4. I do like bleeding edge updates. For wine for instance

To be fair, dual booting is not really for people that aren’t very tech savvy. Just thinking about trying to explain partitions to some people I know is giving me a headache

People like to recommend immutable distros like bazzite because in theory they’re much harder to break, but in reality they are a niche community and are nowhere ready for primetime for casual users

It’s actually less trouble. Back when i used ubuntu based distros I ended up using the arch wiki anyway, and I never successfully upgraded from one ubuntu LTS to the next without problems anyway, so I figured why not try the distro that doesn’t have upgrades and has amazing docs. It’s much more stable.

Ritual sacrifice to the penguin god

Sometimes it feels like a portion of the community views complexity as a badge of honour

Adding GUI tools adds complexity

They’re not really comparable right? Wireguard being a direct vpn connection that requires you to have an open port that can reach the network hosting the vpn and tailscale being a layer on top of wireguard that handles connecting through NATs?

Yes you’re must likely correct. I was simply pushing back on the other poster talking like ubuntu releases other than lts are unstable/testing releases. They are intended to be stable and usable, which is certainly not the case if they include the core utils replacement as it currently stands.

A test suite from phoronix having issues is certainly enough of a canary in the coalmine that this stuff is not ready for showtime. You have been saying that non-lts ubuntu releases are basically unstable releases but that has never been the intent and is not even what they say.

https://ubuntu.com/about/release-cycle

Every six months between LTS versions, Canonical publishes an interim release of Ubuntu, with 25.04 being the latest example. These are production-quality releases and are supported for 9 months, with sufficient time provided for users to update, but these releases do not receive the long-term commitment of LTS releases.

Key words “production quality”. This sure doesn’t seem “production quality” to me.

Why would something that hasn’t reached sufficient test coverage, or that fails one of the most common test suites around, be put into one of the largest distros around, lts version or not? It’s honestly ridiculous

As for Windows apps, do NOT try to run them via Wine

I wouldn’t say that’s totally fair. Just like proton with games, wine keeps getting better, and full support is really a case by case basis.

I think dolphin (the KDE default) can pretty much do everything including dual pane these days

Just tell them to read the arch wiki page on AUR and take it seriously, IMO

I feel like these headlines are designed to be way scarier than the scenarios actually are to people that don’t know much about Arch Linux.

To reiterate, I don’t think there is anything wrong with using the AUR. I think that using an AUR helper that ties updating AUR packages to your pacman -Syu is a trap that people keep falling into despite the warnings in the wiki.

The wiki article :

• specifically says that packages are not thoroughly vetted
• does not recommend using yay or another AUR helper (which is the primary thing I recommend against)
• has a frequently asked question section that is fairly technical and should indicate that it is not for the faint of heart

The aur helper wiki has a fun red disclaimer at the top that no one reads

I like arch because:

• it is rolling release and I like having up to date software and not having to deal with distro upgrades breaking things
• it is community run and not beholden to a company
• packages are mostly unmodified from their upstream
• the wiki and forums are the best of any distro

Side note:

conflict when trying to just update things naively

Sounds like AUR problems. IMO using AUR helpers that tie AUR packages to your full system update command is a trap. AUR never professed to be a stable repository (in fact it’s the opposite). AUR has a place, but it should be used sparingly and thoughtfully.

Not that it is a business but is a specific kind of business. VC funded startups eyeing an IPO more often than not start doing things users are not happy with. Maybe tailscale won’t, but might as well be aware what kind of company they are acknowledge there is a decent chance of rugpulls