mlcwuser
Yes, for this particular situation I did indeed switch back to Debian Stable, I had learned that lesson well. But then I was still stuck on old versions of included software, and wanted to use features that were in newer versions. I used Debian for about eight to ten years, and it always seemd they’d settle on older versions before many of these packages were ready for production (at least feature-wise).
[unknown]
After using Arch on some of my machines for a couple of years, I got increasingly tired of many of Debian’s bespoke way of doing things (like network management), and out of date packages missing features. Critical system packages like systemd always seemed woefully out of date, and going upstream while on Debian was always answered with,“use an up to date version.”
It’s a personal preference, I do not expect everyone to use Arch, nor am I hurt if something else (in this case, Debian) works better for others. And yes, if a system update or upgrade breaks my mailcow stack, I get to pick up the pieces and figure out what went wrong. That’s one reason I do not update every day, nor do I update blindly. If it becomes a problem, I’ll deal with it. I can only see Arch updating the Docker packages, or maybe some kernel update breaks Docker causing me issues. Mailcow is containerized for a reason, right? It shouldn’t rely too much on the base system, other than the aforementioned packages. I can always pin these packages to a specific version, so I only upgrade precisely when I want.
Arch is more of a meta-distribution, no two Arch installations are identical (Gentoo which I’ve had experience with long ago was like this). But that means I get to customize it with just what I want, and nothing else. Debian lets the administrator choose some basic options (like how to partition the disk, or what package groups to install), but that will include quite a bit of software that I don’t use, or may not even understand. Arch isn’t like that, you only install packages you want (and their dependencies). When you’re seeking help from the Arch community you need to be aware of what you’ve installed and how you’ve configured it. Nothing, not even the kernel is installed by default with no action by the administrator.
[unknown]
After using Arch on some of my machines for a couple of years, I got increasingly tired of many of Debian’s bespoke way of doing things (like network management), and out of date packages missing features. Critical system packages like systemd always seemed woefully out of date, and going upstream while on Debian was always answered with,“use an up to date version.”
It’s a personal preference, I do not expect everyone to use Arch, nor am I hurt if something else (in this case, Debian) works better for others. And yes, if a system update or upgrade breaks my mailcow stack, I get to pick up the pieces and figure out what went wrong. That’s one reason I do not update every day, nor do I update blindly. If it becomes a problem, I’ll deal with it. I can only see Arch updating the Docker packages, or maybe some kernel update breaks Docker causing me issues. Mailcow is containerized for a reason, right? It shouldn’t rely too much on the base system, other than the aforementioned packages. I can always pin these packages to a specific version, so I only upgrade precisely when I want.
Arch is more of a meta-distribution, no two Arch installations are identical (Gentoo which I’ve had experience with long ago was like this). But that means I get to customize it with just what I want, and nothing else. Debian lets the administrator choose some basic options (like how to partition the disk, or what package groups to install), but that will include quite a bit of software that I don’t use, or may not even understand. Arch isn’t like that, you only install packages you want (and their dependencies). When you’re seeking help from the Arch community you need to be aware of what you’ve installed and how you’ve configured it. Nothing, not even the kernel is installed by default with no action by the administrator.