But then you are installing it locally. The benefit to containers is they can be deleted. Containers allow you to have separate systems that are not apart of your main system. This keeps everything clean so you don't have to worry.
Also Arch is a unstable mess and requires updates way to frequently
I've been using Arch for over a decade now. On a laptop, desktop, VPS and now it's also driving Steam OS on the Deck. I had very little problems with it compared to our Ubuntu setups at work that randomly break on updates. Ubuntu is not as bad as it used to be but from my experience (i.e. the way I use it), Arch has been more stable and reliable.
No, you need to do system maintenance on Arch at least once a year if you don't do it after each update. You need to merge configs (I love etc-upgrade from gentoo for this) and find and delete orphaned packages left behind by the rolling release that are still on your system.
I haven't tried not touching it for years to be honest. Longest period without a reboot was something between half a year and a year and it worked without a problem. Check the Arch website, breaking changes or manual interventions are very rare nowadays. There's just one thing you have to do if you start an update after a long time: make sure to update the keyring first or pacman will exit with an error. That's also mentioned in the wiki.
I installed Arch on my server because:
I know it very well.
The base system is tiny. Fewer packages = fewer problems. Everything else is in Podman containers anyway.
It's very flexible. I have a customized encrypted rootfs which needs to be unlocked through SSH, not a very common thing I guess.
But then your installing it locally. The benefit to containers is they can be deleted.
This does not make any sense in this context. Or anywhere else if you want to get real pedantic.
Also Arch is a unstable mess and requires updates way to frequently
Arch can beunstable at times but that's part of the deal as is with any distro you'll install and use over time. Requiring updates frequently is also not a valid argument against Arch as you can choose when to update.
Arch ships to new of packages for my comfort. This leads to breakages if you don't read the update notes. I want my system to stay updated automatically and Arch causes to many headaches.
Software updates can potentially cause issues in general. This situation is not unique to Arch.
There's nothing wrong with a rolling release model where you get newer software that's closer to upstream. In most cases, you get security updates faster and in some instances you get bug fixes & new features from upstream that will take weeks if not months to hit "stable" distros.
But then you are installing it locally. The benefit to containers is they can be deleted. Containers allow you to have separate systems that are not apart of your main system. This keeps everything clean so you don't have to worry.
Also Arch is a unstable mess and requires updates way to frequently
I've been using Arch for over a decade now. On a laptop, desktop, VPS and now it's also driving Steam OS on the Deck. I had very little problems with it compared to our Ubuntu setups at work that randomly break on updates. Ubuntu is not as bad as it used to be but from my experience (i.e. the way I use it), Arch has been more stable and reliable.
I have also had issues with Ubuntu. I just stick with Debian because I don't have to touch it for years.
Can you do the same with Arch? Also why do you need newer packages on a server? (I'm taking about the VPS)
No, you need to do system maintenance on Arch at least once a year if you don't do it after each update. You need to merge configs (I love etc-upgrade from gentoo for this) and find and delete orphaned packages left behind by the rolling release that are still on your system.
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/System_maintenance
I haven't tried not touching it for years to be honest. Longest period without a reboot was something between half a year and a year and it worked without a problem. Check the Arch website, breaking changes or manual interventions are very rare nowadays. There's just one thing you have to do if you start an update after a long time: make sure to update the keyring first or pacman will exit with an error. That's also mentioned in the wiki.
I installed Arch on my server because:
This does not make any sense in this context. Or anywhere else if you want to get real pedantic.
Arch can be unstable at times but that's part of the deal as is with any distro you'll install and use over time. Requiring updates frequently is also not a valid argument against Arch as you can choose when to update.
Arch ships to new of packages for my comfort. This leads to breakages if you don't read the update notes. I want my system to stay updated automatically and Arch causes to many headaches.
Software updates can potentially cause issues in general. This situation is not unique to Arch.
There's nothing wrong with a rolling release model where you get newer software that's closer to upstream. In most cases, you get security updates faster and in some instances you get bug fixes & new features from upstream that will take weeks if not months to hit "stable" distros.
That's fine if you like that kind of thing. However it isn't for everyone
Sorry to be a grammar nazi but that's the second time and it annoys some of us. It's literally a different word with a different meaning!