There's the primary maintained software repository, then there's the AUR. I think most of the times people's systems break because as inexperienced users they find a specific piece of software a site told them to install and its only available in the AUR, instead of finding something properly maintained that already exists to do the same thing. Over time you end up with a mess of a system relying on user maintained build files.
I learned a lot in my first year of Arch (probably my 15th+ year of Linux though and I was not afraid of the command line) so I decided to reinstall my system after that first year and one of the choices I made was to not use AUR packages (except in very specific cases). I also changed bootloader's and a few other things.
I've had mine break twice I think. The first time was because I didn't know the general rule was "if you're doing an update, update everything". I saw an updated GPU driver was released so I installed it, but didn't bother with anything else. Turns out you're supposed to update the graphics drivers and kernel at the same time, so i wasn't getting output after booting the kernel. The beauty of Arch though is that when you learn to install it, you also learn how to fix it. Booted off the USB installer stick, mounted my root partition, chrooted to it, then ran a system update. I was back booted up, logged in, and gaming in less than 10 minutes from discovering the problem.
In general, I would say people's systems getting bricked "all the time" is a bit hyperbolic.
In general, I would say people’s systems getting bricked “all the time” is a bit hyperbolic.
I'm going to need to push back against that. I don't believe I was being hyperbolic.
For the record, I said "semi-brick it", and used that term specifically so thst I would not be hyperbolic. My point was that updates could go wrong and the OS would require repairing and was not usable until the repairs were done.
I keep reading over and over again in various places on the Internet that things break with some reoccurrence, and they have to be repaired, so I don't believe I was being hyperbolic.
Perhaps you are being defensive?
If you read the various responses, including your own, to my comments you get people who are knowledgeable with it talking about learning how to repair it when something goes wrong, in a semi-defensive sort of way.
It doesn't seem like a good choice for someone who just wants to use their computers a tool (to game, etc.) and not enjoy it as an OS hobby.
I don't mean to be argumentative, but people who use this OS seem to have a very specific perspective about its ease of use that wouldn't align in my honest opinion with people who use computers just as tools, and do not wish to take the time to be overly knowledgeable about their OS.
There's the primary maintained software repository, then there's the AUR. I think most of the times people's systems break because as inexperienced users they find a specific piece of software a site told them to install and its only available in the AUR, instead of finding something properly maintained that already exists to do the same thing. Over time you end up with a mess of a system relying on user maintained build files.
I learned a lot in my first year of Arch (probably my 15th+ year of Linux though and I was not afraid of the command line) so I decided to reinstall my system after that first year and one of the choices I made was to not use AUR packages (except in very specific cases). I also changed bootloader's and a few other things.
I've had mine break twice I think. The first time was because I didn't know the general rule was "if you're doing an update, update everything". I saw an updated GPU driver was released so I installed it, but didn't bother with anything else. Turns out you're supposed to update the graphics drivers and kernel at the same time, so i wasn't getting output after booting the kernel. The beauty of Arch though is that when you learn to install it, you also learn how to fix it. Booted off the USB installer stick, mounted my root partition, chrooted to it, then ran a system update. I was back booted up, logged in, and gaming in less than 10 minutes from discovering the problem.
In general, I would say people's systems getting bricked "all the time" is a bit hyperbolic.
I'm going to need to push back against that. I don't believe I was being hyperbolic.
For the record, I said "semi-brick it", and used that term specifically so thst I would not be hyperbolic. My point was that updates could go wrong and the OS would require repairing and was not usable until the repairs were done.
I keep reading over and over again in various places on the Internet that things break with some reoccurrence, and they have to be repaired, so I don't believe I was being hyperbolic.
Perhaps you are being defensive?
If you read the various responses, including your own, to my comments you get people who are knowledgeable with it talking about learning how to repair it when something goes wrong, in a semi-defensive sort of way.
It doesn't seem like a good choice for someone who just wants to use their computers a tool (to game, etc.) and not enjoy it as an OS hobby.
I don't mean to be argumentative, but people who use this OS seem to have a very specific perspective about its ease of use that wouldn't align in my honest opinion with people who use computers just as tools, and do not wish to take the time to be overly knowledgeable about their OS.