so a common claim I see made is that arch is up to date than Debian but harder to maintain and easier to break. Is there a good sort of middle ground distro between the reliability of Debian and the up-to-date packages of arch?

  • Nibodhika@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    What’s wrong with Ubuntu/Mint/PopOS/Fedora or any of the distros usually recommended? They’re easier to maintain and more up to date than Debian

    • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      I wouldn’t call them up to date but they are a little newer than Debian with the exception of Pop OS.