Same. I've switched to Arch from Ubuntu as my main os almost 10 years ago and in all that time I've had a problem that goes beyond inconvenience level maybe twice. In fact Ubuntu broke more often.
I broke my install by updating it, I get that if you perfectly understand what's going on then it has no bugs but that's really not my experience. A lot of the time something will break and it's easy to say "I should've known it was this so it's my fault" but really if you didn't expect it to work a certain way and it breaks it's not a super stable system.
My Ubuntu broke literally every time I did a version upgrade. It's probably better now, but I'm not going back.
The last system that straight up broke for me was a default installation of Debian Stable, and that wasn't long ago.
I understand Arch isn't easy to use or maintain.
But in my opinion, if you use something wrong and it breaks, that doesn't mean it's unstable. And if you update Arch by simply hitting "pacman -Syu" every day, you're doing it wrong.
But if lots of people use it wrong and break it then maybe it's too obtuse. I broke one of my applications by upgrading packages. The solution? Install the package again, I thought the package manager would take care of stuff like that but if it's meant to be me then I think it's a bad system.
I always find it kinda weird when people criticize free software.
Like, the developers make something, give it to you for free, pay for server space so you can download it for free, and then you say "it sucks".
OK, just don't use it then.
Criticism and hate are two different things. I hate windows, I can criticise parts of arch Linux which is so far my favourite OS. Me not liking part of it or the way it works doesn't mean there's another version that is completely perfect and I should just shut up and use that. Also no it doesn't suck, but updating my system and having it break is a problem I should not be having.
Apparently the upgrade (including configuration) is incredibly smooth. Those interested in tinkering with the vanilla experience have had to install it in a VM.
Made the switch on EndeavourOS this morning and so far so good. I was hesitant to update to Wayland because I'm still a newb and heard there were issues, but my system is AMD based so no problems (yet).
I really like Void Linux. It is a bit harder to use if you're a beginner, since it's really minimalist and uses its own init system, but overall it's really customizable and packages are kind of new (it is currently on the 6.6.21 kernel version, as a measure).
I can't see the point in that? Certain tools could work fine, but the actual desktop environment? It'd be running in a sandbox and would need to be given access to everything to function presumably. The various tools need to communicate with each other and the X11 or Wayland composite. So the flatpak container would just be overhead with a lot of duplication of system libraries? I'm not even sure it's possible but I don't know enough of the limitations of flatpak.
It's an interesting idea to test and play wth but I can't see it as an actual viable means of distribution.
If you wanted to play with plasma 6 then Virtual box and KDE Neon or Arch would be the way, and would negate the work needed to to get it working via flatpak. So I guess what would be the benefit for anyone to build and test it via flatpak even if for feasible?
I mean as you can use far newer KDE applications on Debian stable via Flatpak, it may serve the same purpose contained in a separate tree without changing the core OS.
I guess distrobox+neon would work fine yes. I just wondered the state of Flatpak with the recent changes.
It will be isolated in its own directory, as I said I think distrobox.it+neon+, own home will be a far better solution of course. I keep hearing Flatpak is adding snap-like deeper features so I wondered how far it went.
About the KDE 6 being unstable: I think they wanted to ship something out and for people preferring stability, 5.x LTS will be there for a long time.
I just applied the update to my old laptop that has been kickin KDE on Arch for a while now. The only thing I noticed was it took longer to load the desktop the first time, my theme was broken but everything was fine when I selected the default dark theme. The fonts look different but otherwise its the same as it ever was
I'm on KDE Arch and switched about a week ago. I have an Nvidia card and went straight from x11 to Wayland plasma 6. It's definitely prettier and smoother, but it's absolutely not as stable. Idk if that's an Nvidia things, a Wayland thing, or a plasma 6 thing, but I definitely have fairly consistent display issues after switching. I have a btrfs snapshot from right before I updated that's at plasma 5, so I have a fallback if I want it. It's mostly just an inconvenience right now, so I'll probably just ride it out for a while and see if things improve.
It's definitely Wayland on Nvidia, I had the same issues, Element had a flickering black screen. Switching the default session from Wayland to X11 fixed all issues.
From my experience it happens with any XWayland window that fails to hit your display refresh rate. Makes programs such as vscode or element almost impossible to use on high Hz screens, as their max fps is locked to 60.
Despite all the cool new things in 6 I am happy with 5 and will patiently wait until it either comes to Debian or I get bored of it and hop to a more recent distro.
