Facts. Straight facts. If something breaks, I can usually fix it with a quick google search and a few commands and it’s SUPER rare that it even happens.
Yep, i've been using relatively minimal bleeding edge alpine and arch installs for couple years now, never had any issue of it breaking. I feel like people most likely break their systems installing a bunch of stuff from the AUR. Top Video!
Arch is a project car. The builder is responsible for choosing, assembling, and configuring each component to serve the builder's objectives and tastes. It's all documented, but the builder is in charge. The builder understands that mistakes can be made at any point. The beauty of software is that backups make it possible to undo any mistake. Every competent PDP-11 Unix® administrator had a backup tape/disk pack of a good working system. "Undo" is the secret sauce for retaining sanity, regardless of OS, distro, or version. First skill any system builder needs to practice (after commiting to RTFM) is learning how to backup and restore. Emphasis on _restore_. Relying on distros, procedures, and RTFM to not break is foolish and unnecessary. Things break, and _undo_ gives one as many chances to get things right as one needs.
Switched to Arch from Kubuntu 10 months ago. It has crashed 3 times within the first few months. 1. The first time because I used ChatGPT commands and installed nvidia proprietary drivers over the existing open source ones. 2. The second time because I used archinstall the wrong way. 3. Third time because I rsynced the bricked backup with my new clean system. Surprisingly my new install with nvidia proprietary drivers works the best. If I want to test something new out, I do it on a VM.
Yeah i saw that video. One thing i noticed. Was they said they would put off updates for extended periods of time to avoid breaking their system. In my experience that is the thing that will break stuff. It wont always, but not regularly updating definitely makes issues much more likely to occur. But i definitely agree that it has to be something with how their system is set up. Because i just don't ever have issues like that. I update every day, or nearly everyday. Don't run into problems. The only thing i have ever had an issue with was trying to rin the git versions of qtile and hyprland. And they were pretty easily solved. But that still wasn't arch's fault.
I‘m pretty happy with Manjaro unstable branch and I also follow the „simple base system“-approach. For apps with complex dependencies I either use podman containers or flatpaks. Works great so far for me! Only AUR packages in my system are Google chrome (for work) and some fonts
I use a lot of stuff from the AUR and the whole “Manjaro dependency hell” thing people keep talking about is largely overblown. I run Arch on my desktop and Manjaro stable on my laptops.
This is such a great video for everyone out there that has had issues in the past and gave up, or is on the fence about trying Arch (but have heard the "scary" stories). I agree with you James, I personally have "broken" my system on purpose and accidentally. When the accidents happened, it was usually conflicts with other packages not being compatible with a new update. Anyways, always here to say awesome job and give you a big thumbs up! Thanks!
Thanks shawn. :) For some people, although not my thing, it's also why flatpaks, snaps, and app images are gaining popularity as the dependencies are self-contained.
Arch is my "play with it linux " system (not in the gaming sense ) and i have a redundancy of backup drives if it breaks . it's the best learning tool for linux
@@folksurvival yeah gento is the real deal i played with it a few weeks but the constant compiling for simple updates files and kernel is taxing my little t480 on time and energy even if you can go binary only now....the cool think though is that gentoo is systemd free .
@@AbelAcuña-j1y NixOS is so nice, but it also makes everything "nix" which can be problematic for some setups. Setting up programming environments is mostly painless, aside from the knowledge gap needed for non-standard setups and the mess of Android development.
I'm kind of new to Linux ( < 2 years ), and I have to say, that every single time that Linux was broken it was because of something that I did. I haven't been for too much time in Arch (3 months I think?) and, by now, everything I broke on Arch I was able to fix it manually, without reinstalling the whole OS, and I'm quite happy about it ✌🏼
Except for fs-miner-tracker, which is built-in in Ubuntu and for some reason it created a massive /tmp file that would fill all the disk space if I didn't shut down the system. Someone might say "Shut down the system when you are not using it then", but there's 3 problems with that: 1- I don't want to (if I'm working in something, I prefer to have that something ready for when I have to work on it). 2- That's not intended behaviour (I hope). 3, and most important - Having that much data written to the disk cannot be good for the life expectancy of my disk drive, even if it's deleted at shutdown. I've heard that fs-miner-tracker is something that explores the filesystem for some purpose, and maybe that /tmp file was full of errors because of my windows partition, but an explanation is not an excuse.
i am a newbie to linux as a whole. And I was told not to install Arch. So i did install arch from YT videos and something was not coming along. So I turned to Claude. Now I have a neat little environment with i3, polybar and minimal software just to do what i do, which is school stuff and watch multimedia. No issues so far.
I run Garuda for over 1 year now.I used Gnome, Qtile with x11 Hyprland during that time. I didn't have anything break to the point of me not being able to use it. I did have a few stints of nuisance issues. Things like the x11 session crashing when the screens go in power save mode, though that might be just Nvidia drivers being buggy.
I'm very happy with MX Linux Xfce. Tried several Arch based and they all had update errors. Never have those on MX. I installed it, made it my own and it just works. It's easy to install, it's quick everything opens immediately when I click on it and it's very stable because Debian based. I don't need the latest and greatest. I use refurbished Dell optiplex mini's because they are cheap and work great with Linux.
IDK what you mean by "fast", to me, the boot speed is the most thing that matters yet only sometimes, often enough, I just boot once and keep it up until the end of the day. I try to use as much CLI as possible which helps me avoid touching the mouse and waiting for the GUI to load. Other that, it's really just splitting hair.
For me, the nice thing about Arch is it is the right amount of independence: just enough on the install to give you the minimum to have a running shell and a mainly working system, then leaving the user to install only the packages you want or need. It's a nice amount of fine grain control, and with a minimal install, most of your system resources at your disposal for speed. That said, my main system is Artix with runnit as my init system to give me a faster boot.
"Simple as possible, but no simpler," is generally good advice for avoiding trouble. It's sort of funny that today I also watched another video (ruclips.net/video/u2Juz5sQyYQ/видео.htmlsi=7VpRO84LLCYDzeBd) where someone builds about the smallest Linux kernel that can host a minimal shell, then actually builds that minimal shell from scratch in C in a way that almost anyone can understand (even if you normally just use BASH 😉). But then, since the static build of the shell came out to 700+ KB (the size of his tiny kernel bin), he decided to do away with the LIBC dependencies and make the interfaces to the fundamental Linux system calls needed by the shell with assembler (😝), so the shell was only 9 KB. But then to make something more meaningful, he added the Lua scripting/programming language, which was about 1.5 MB. But the same approach could probably be done with busybox to make a more generally useful runtime for someone used to the Linux command line. If I ever decide to roll my own non-X/Wayland system, I might use that guy's approach to make it simple as possible.
@JamesChampionLinux James, it was several years ago, but I believe it was the bootloader. I don't mind getting into the trenches, but it was my development workstation, and I had little time to spare. Since then I've used Ubuntu, Mint, and now Pop.
@@JamesChampionLinuxi prefer to use my OS without trying to use it. I mean, yiu straight up and that's it. It just works. As Windows or Mac i have all of them, Manjaro, Mac, Windows. For me Mac works the, i don't know what brokes gonna say about it
I love debian but it only last 5 years hate updating it would bee nice if it could last 10 years stability is king. Prefir old software. Debian run like a clock it can run all, for years with no errors
Switched to Artix ~3 months ago w/no breaks. Daily use laptop for work. I only update about every 2 weeks or so. I think updating very often has some downfalls.
Arch didn't break li9ke on the past after couple missing update, i even stayed two months or more without update, if some packages broke I competently remove it and it troubles dependencies and install it again.
@@JamesChampionLinux Yep for me Arch was the most stable Linux version I ever tried, I was using Linux mint before it (2 Yers) , I stop using it because I can get latest version of many apps, for normies I think Linux Mint are OK
Hi James, Thanks for your Video How do I do? 1. Update regularly before any app install or work 2. Make a backup every time I update So if after that OS breaks I reinstall from backup and as - usually - I know what-when broke try to work it out before going on Note I run Arch (a few) virtually
boys I like arch but as a dev nix and ideally nixos with flakes (even though they have their flaws) is just so cool Edit: starting with it tho takes some effort and is not exactly easy. arch was the first linux distro I was on then I got a laptop and tried nix. To be arch was a lot easier than nix then again I am quite tech savy and liked the command line before installing arch and had never used a functional language
use now 2 years Arch and 1 year of the two Artix - [ no systemd ] . In two years i had to downgrade one pkg and it was not the fault of arch - Conclusion : Arch/Artix stable like steel ...
NASA uses Debian and Ubuntu LTS instead of Arch for a pretty good reason. Running bleeding edge / beta-grade software constantly is not a path towards stability / reliability.
Sure, I understand why a space agency would want to use a system like Debian or Ubuntu LTS that have so many hours of proven reliability. I think Arch is generally fine for stability though.
@@JamesChampionLinux people say many things about arch and most to this day believe that it's not stable enough to be used as server. I beg the differ, beauty of arch linux for me lies in it's incredible customisability. I looked up arch wiki, i looked up packages avaliable, kernels, desktop environments and so on. It turn out though i may not necessarily be correct that arch repository provides everything you'll ever need to make you arch installation rock solid in terms of stability. i my self for now use debian and so far i had zero issues.
if arch is breaking its me that is breaking it..btw arch got increased stability the last decade since I've been using it . aur is not helping if you start abusing it of course .lol
Thanks for the quite interesting and informative video! BTW, there is only one thing that I didn't get from the video: which Linux distro are you running ? /s 😎
Why would I buy a new computer and keep reading update details just so Arch linux doesn't break?? my OS should suck it and shut up, it's here to serve me, not the opposite.
A fair point. I think if you've gone through the Arch install and you realise Arch Linux does require at least some amount of system interaction and maintenance, keeping an eye on the Arch news page isn't too much of a chore. I just have mine as an RSS feed.
Yk, mine never broke, just some problems whilst starting out and that was nothing i couldn't fix And i have a lot of AUR Packages and even Game on it all the time. Saying no issues with gaming would be a lie but thats what i signed up for, and mostly everything works amazing with Proton
i have to say in my case arch breaks really often. i would say 2 times a month but i also have to say that it always is because of nividia driver things. so i gave up on arch i just use it for learning linux in general. i think with an AMD GPU i might not have that problems but there is no money for switching right now. until i have the money i will use Mint as a daily driver.
no, always breaks unless you not user. user = software, a lot software. software on arch just bleeding edge. bleeding edge = testing branch. unless you have backups (btrfs snapshots to rollback at least with study to do it) DO NOT USE arch for daily driver
Hi James (again) I'd like ask you something it's been stuck in my head for some time Think Arch is suitable to run a Desktop to work with Containers, Virtual-machines, Home-lab, Mail, Office-suite, one old linux program (32 bits)...? I ask cause I've heard some RUclipsrs (who consider Linux power users) saying that - ie - one day you have ObsStudio perfectly configured and working and - any day after - when trying to stream video again doesn't work at all due to somethin broken in Arch... Thanks!
Sure! I know it can be argued that running something like Debian is going to be better for stability, but I still think Arch Linux with up-to-date software is going to be a better overall experience on the desktop, even if it might seem riskier. I guess you will have to weight that risk. ObsStudio is a good example to bring up as the creators of Obs says that you should only use the Flatpak anyway, rather than any distribution's package. It might be a good idea on any distro, for very large programs, to run a flatpak if you're worried it might break your system. I'm not advocating for snaps, flatpaks, or app images, but I can see how they might be a good idea in this case. I hope this helps.
James says "👋Arch install bricked? skill issue ✋👌"
Facts. Straight facts. If something breaks, I can usually fix it with a quick google search and a few commands and it’s SUPER rare that it even happens.
used arch with dwm for 2 years straight, never broke.
Yep, i've been using relatively minimal bleeding edge alpine and arch installs for couple years now, never had any issue of it breaking. I feel like people most likely break their systems installing a bunch of stuff from the AUR. Top Video!
Thanks, and it's good to hear that multiple installs haven't broken for you.
Arch is a project car. The builder is responsible for choosing, assembling, and configuring each component to serve the builder's objectives and tastes. It's all documented, but the builder is in charge.
The builder understands that mistakes can be made at any point. The beauty of software is that backups make it possible to undo any mistake.
Every competent PDP-11 Unix® administrator had a backup tape/disk pack of a good working system.
"Undo" is the secret sauce for retaining sanity, regardless of OS, distro, or version.
First skill any system builder needs to practice (after commiting to RTFM) is learning how to backup and restore. Emphasis on _restore_.
Relying on distros, procedures, and RTFM to not break is foolish and unnecessary. Things break, and _undo_ gives one as many chances to get things right as one needs.
I couldn't have put it better!
Switched to Arch from Kubuntu 10 months ago. It has crashed 3 times within the first few months.
1. The first time because I used ChatGPT commands and installed nvidia proprietary drivers over the existing open source ones.
2. The second time because I used archinstall the wrong way.
3. Third time because I rsynced the bricked backup with my new clean system.
Surprisingly my new install with nvidia proprietary drivers works the best. If I want to test something new out, I do it on a VM.
Good to hear after a few missteps it's all working out.
Nice to know, I was considering using the open source drivers. Guess I will stick to proprietary until they get better.
Yeah i saw that video. One thing i noticed. Was they said they would put off updates for extended periods of time to avoid breaking their system.
In my experience that is the thing that will break stuff. It wont always, but not regularly updating definitely makes issues much more likely to occur.
But i definitely agree that it has to be something with how their system is set up. Because i just don't ever have issues like that. I update every day, or nearly everyday. Don't run into problems. The only thing i have ever had an issue with was trying to rin the git versions of qtile and hyprland. And they were pretty easily solved. But that still wasn't arch's fault.
Yes, I think he said he was basically living in fear of his Arch Linux install, lol.
A good option for testing new software is Distrobox
Yeah, Distrobox is a great project.
I‘m pretty happy with Manjaro unstable branch and I also follow the „simple base system“-approach. For apps with complex dependencies I either use podman containers or flatpaks. Works great so far for me! Only AUR packages in my system are Google chrome (for work) and some fonts
Good plan!
I use a lot of stuff from the AUR and the whole “Manjaro dependency hell” thing people keep talking about is largely overblown. I run Arch on my desktop and Manjaro stable on my laptops.
I do all my development in distrobox. This creates a nice seperation for the dev environment incase anyrhing breaks.
This is such a great video for everyone out there that has had issues in the past and gave up, or is on the fence about trying Arch (but have heard the "scary" stories). I agree with you James, I personally have "broken" my system on purpose and accidentally. When the accidents happened, it was usually conflicts with other packages not being compatible with a new update. Anyways, always here to say awesome job and give you a big thumbs up! Thanks!
Thanks shawn. :)
For some people, although not my thing, it's also why flatpaks, snaps, and app images are gaining popularity as the dependencies are self-contained.
Arch is my "play with it linux " system (not in the gaming sense ) and i have a redundancy of backup drives if it breaks . it's the best learning tool for linux
Absolutely agree.
Better than Gentoo or Slackware?
Good point. I was going to mention something like Gentoo as a caveat if you really want to dive deeper.
@@folksurvival yeah gento is the real deal i played with it a few weeks but the constant compiling for simple updates files and kernel is taxing my little t480 on time and energy even if you can go binary only now....the cool think though is that gentoo is systemd free .
Nixos is a great option for those that need a complex main system. The issue might be the learning curve of Nix.
NixOS is an interesting one, and I'm looking forward to trying it out in the future.
@@AbelAcuña-j1y NixOS is so nice, but it also makes everything "nix" which can be problematic for some setups.
Setting up programming environments is mostly painless, aside from the knowledge gap needed for non-standard setups and the mess of Android development.
I'm kind of new to Linux ( < 2 years ), and I have to say, that every single time that Linux was broken it was because of something that I did.
I haven't been for too much time in Arch (3 months I think?) and, by now, everything I broke on Arch I was able to fix it manually, without reinstalling the whole OS, and I'm quite happy about it ✌🏼
Except for fs-miner-tracker, which is built-in in Ubuntu and for some reason it created a massive /tmp file that would fill all the disk space if I didn't shut down the system.
Someone might say "Shut down the system when you are not using it then", but there's 3 problems with that:
1- I don't want to (if I'm working in something, I prefer to have that something ready for when I have to work on it).
2- That's not intended behaviour (I hope).
3, and most important - Having that much data written to the disk cannot be good for the life expectancy of my disk drive, even if it's deleted at shutdown.
I've heard that fs-miner-tracker is something that explores the filesystem for some purpose, and maybe that /tmp file was full of errors because of my windows partition, but an explanation is not an excuse.
I'd never heard of fs-miner-tracker. Thanks.
Good one on fixing your Arch issues in these early months.
i am a newbie to linux as a whole. And I was told not to install Arch. So i did install arch from YT videos and something was not coming along. So I turned to Claude. Now I have a neat little environment with i3, polybar and minimal software just to do what i do, which is school stuff and watch multimedia. No issues so far.
Good to hear that you got a system up and running and all good so far.
0:27 are you talking about Mashed?
I run Garuda for over 1 year now.I used Gnome, Qtile with x11 Hyprland during that time. I didn't have anything break to the point of me not being able to use it. I did have a few stints of nuisance issues. Things like the x11 session crashing when the screens go in power save mode, though that might be just Nvidia drivers being buggy.
I'm very happy with MX Linux Xfce. Tried several Arch based and they all had update errors. Never have those on MX. I installed it, made it my own and it just works. It's easy to install, it's quick everything opens immediately when I click on it and it's very stable because Debian based. I don't need the latest and greatest. I use refurbished Dell optiplex mini's because they are cheap and work great with Linux.
Good to see any problems with Arch didn't stop you using Linux.
@@JamesChampionLinux I'm never going back to Windows. The last time I used it was in June 2017.
IDK what you mean by "fast", to me, the boot speed is the most thing that matters yet only sometimes, often enough, I just boot once and keep it up until the end of the day.
I try to use as much CLI as possible which helps me avoid touching the mouse and waiting for the GUI to load. Other that, it's really just splitting hair.
For me, the nice thing about Arch is it is the right amount of independence: just enough on the install to give you the minimum to have a running shell and a mainly working system, then leaving the user to install only the packages you want or need. It's a nice amount of fine grain control, and with a minimal install, most of your system resources at your disposal for speed. That said, my main system is Artix with runnit as my init system to give me a faster boot.
@@JamesChampionLinux I'm using arch and systemd-boot. It takes my system ~5 seconds to get to sddm from boot.
"Simple as possible, but no simpler," is generally good advice for avoiding trouble. It's sort of funny that today I also watched another video (ruclips.net/video/u2Juz5sQyYQ/видео.htmlsi=7VpRO84LLCYDzeBd) where someone builds about the smallest Linux kernel that can host a minimal shell, then actually builds that minimal shell from scratch in C in a way that almost anyone can understand (even if you normally just use BASH 😉). But then, since the static build of the shell came out to 700+ KB (the size of his tiny kernel bin), he decided to do away with the LIBC dependencies and make the interfaces to the fundamental Linux system calls needed by the shell with assembler (😝), so the shell was only 9 KB. But then to make something more meaningful, he added the Lua scripting/programming language, which was about 1.5 MB. But the same approach could probably be done with busybox to make a more generally useful runtime for someone used to the Linux command line.
If I ever decide to roll my own non-X/Wayland system, I might use that guy's approach to make it simple as possible.
Thanks for sharing the video link and what you describe! :)
Years ago, I liked the concept. But after a few breaks, I gave up.
That's a shame. Do you think there was something specific that happened while you were using it that broke your system?
@JamesChampionLinux James, it was several years ago, but I believe it was the bootloader. I don't mind getting into the trenches, but it was my development workstation, and I had little time to spare. Since then I've used Ubuntu, Mint, and now Pop.
@@JamesChampionLinuxi prefer to use my OS without trying to use it. I mean, yiu straight up and that's it. It just works. As Windows or Mac i have all of them, Manjaro, Mac, Windows. For me Mac works the, i don't know what brokes gonna say about it
I love debian but it only last 5 years hate updating it would bee nice if it could last 10 years stability is king.
Prefir old software.
Debian run like a clock it can run all, for years with no errors
Switched to Artix ~3 months ago w/no breaks. Daily use laptop for work. I only update about every 2 weeks or so. I think updating very often has some downfalls.
Good to hear that it's working nicely with no breaks. I tend to backup and update twice a week.
Arch didn't break li9ke on the past after couple missing update, i even stayed two months or more without update, if some packages broke I competently remove it and it troubles dependencies and install it again.
Arch Linux run solid on my laptop for four years straight, on my new laptop I'm using Windows since i need it for desktop applications development
Nice. I think the Linux RUclipsr Brodie Robertson's has had his Arch install for nearly 5 years now.
@@JamesChampionLinux Yep for me Arch was the most stable Linux version I ever tried, I was using Linux mint before it (2 Yers) , I stop using it because I can get latest version of many apps, for normies I think Linux Mint are OK
Hi James,
Thanks for your Video
How do I do?
1. Update regularly before any app install or work
2. Make a backup every time I update
So if after that OS breaks I reinstall from backup and as - usually - I know what-when broke try to work it out before going on
Note I run Arch (a few) virtually
This is exactly the same as what I do! :)
boys I like arch but as a dev nix and ideally nixos with flakes (even though they have their flaws) is just so cool
Edit: starting with it tho takes some effort and is not exactly easy. arch was the first linux distro I was on then I got a laptop and tried nix. To be arch was a lot easier than nix then again I am quite tech savy and liked the command line before installing arch and had never used a functional language
Interesting perspective. Thanks for sharing.
Sure... Just don't update it or do anything with it.
use now 2 years Arch and 1 year of the two Artix - [ no systemd ] . In two years i had to downgrade one pkg and it was not the fault of arch - Conclusion : Arch/Artix stable like steel ...
Great to hear. My main system is Artix too BTW. ;)
NASA uses Debian and Ubuntu LTS instead of Arch for a pretty good reason. Running bleeding edge / beta-grade software constantly is not a path towards stability / reliability.
Sure, I understand why a space agency would want to use a system like Debian or Ubuntu LTS that have so many hours of proven reliability. I think Arch is generally fine for stability though.
@@JamesChampionLinux people say many things about arch and most to this day believe that it's not stable enough to be used as server. I beg the differ, beauty of arch linux for me lies in it's incredible customisability. I looked up arch wiki, i looked up packages avaliable, kernels, desktop environments and so on. It turn out though i may not necessarily be correct that arch repository provides everything you'll ever need to make you arch installation rock solid in terms of stability. i my self for now use debian and so far i had zero issues.
if arch is breaking its me that is breaking it..btw arch got increased stability the last decade since I've been using it . aur is not helping if you start abusing it of course .lol
Thanks for the quite interesting and informative video!
BTW, there is only one thing that I didn't get from the video:
which Linux distro are you running ?
/s 😎
;)
Why would I buy a new computer and keep reading update details just so Arch linux doesn't break?? my OS should suck it and shut up, it's here to serve me, not the opposite.
A fair point. I think if you've gone through the Arch install and you realise Arch Linux does require at least some amount of system interaction and maintenance, keeping an eye on the Arch news page isn't too much of a chore. I just have mine as an RSS feed.
Yk, mine never broke, just some problems whilst starting out and that was nothing i couldn't fix
And i have a lot of AUR Packages and even Game on it all the time. Saying no issues with gaming would be a lie but thats what i signed up for, and mostly everything works amazing with Proton
Nice.
i have to say in my case arch breaks really often. i would say 2 times a month but i also have to say that it always is because of nividia driver things. so i gave up on arch i just use it for learning linux in general. i think with an AMD GPU i might not have that problems but there is no money for switching right now. until i have the money i will use Mint as a daily driver.
Hopefully, if your problem is the NVidia drivers, you'll be able to use Arch regularly again in the future when they're working properly.
I break pacman all the time
no, always breaks unless you not user. user = software, a lot software. software on arch just bleeding edge. bleeding edge = testing branch. unless you have backups (btrfs snapshots to rollback at least with study to do it) DO NOT USE arch for daily driver
systemd is not the problem, systemd ecosystem is...
Hi James (again)
I'd like ask you something it's been stuck in my head for some time
Think Arch is suitable to run a Desktop to work with Containers, Virtual-machines, Home-lab, Mail, Office-suite, one old linux program (32 bits)...?
I ask cause I've heard some RUclipsrs (who consider Linux power users) saying that - ie - one day you have ObsStudio perfectly configured and working and - any day after - when trying to stream video again doesn't work at all due to somethin broken in Arch...
Thanks!
Sure! I know it can be argued that running something like Debian is going to be better for stability, but I still think Arch Linux with up-to-date software is going to be a better overall experience on the desktop, even if it might seem riskier. I guess you will have to weight that risk. ObsStudio is a good example to bring up as the creators of Obs says that you should only use the Flatpak anyway, rather than any distribution's package. It might be a good idea on any distro, for very large programs, to run a flatpak if you're worried it might break your system. I'm not advocating for snaps, flatpaks, or app images, but I can see how they might be a good idea in this case. I hope this helps.
@@JamesChampionLinux Yes it helps. Thnxs and I'm willing to take the risk as I always rely on my backups in case something goes awry
Live off the land
Arch Linux never breaks if you never update it😉.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
i use windows 11 btw.
;)
based