data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4cafe/4cafe180227655559743b0fb17b751ccdce08dc3" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b6446/b6446867cdb2168bc8ef0ee6a9997baaeceefff9" alt=""
I literally consider Debian to be less functionally stable than arch because of Apt. I’ve had apt completely eviscerate systems and then just bail out leaving you with a system that has a completely empty /bin with seemingly no easy way to recover.
Meanwhile pacman has literally never done that, and even on systems that became horrifically broken due to literal data corruption I was able to just chroot in, download a static built pacman, and reinstall all native packages with a single command… It’s nuts how much more reliable and repairable arch ia but people act like it’s frail just because it gets updates more than once every century
You would, it’s very very straightforward they made it very simple. I literally walked multiple non-technical users through it when it happened because I have moved some of my friends and family to Linux. I won’t say that it wasn’t tedious and that it wasn’t annoying for them but they got through it just fine