@Michel Out of curiosity, what makes Arch Linux and co. more stable than Ubuntu Linux distributions? Apart from the bundled applications (from many to none at all), the different versions of said applications, and different ways of installing those applications, what else is there that differentiates distributions to the extent that they affect stability? I'm probably overthinking this, but eh...I'll be interested in hearing more.
I find Arch more unstable since it's a rolling release. Debian is very stable like CentOS. At the end of the day they are all running the same Linux kernel base so the performance is about the same. It all comes down to the stability of the newer packages pushed out by a rolling release.
@R29k Thanks! That makes a lot of sense. So basically, if the distribution uses older packages, then it should be more stable. Although, if that's all stability is about when it comes to Linux distributions, then 'stable' is just a euphemism for 'older' (or is it the other way around? ). Meh, whether one goes the 'unstable' (up-to-date) or 'stable' (outdated) route, sacrifices are to be made either way I guess.
I always have freezing problems with ubuntu/linux mint and other ubuntu based distro's. I tested Arch and Manjaro and never had 1 single freezing issue. Maybe my laptop does not like ubuntu based stuff, but arch based works better on my machine. Also Arch is always up to date compared to ubuntu based releases
@Michel That's interesting. I've heard that Ubuntu and other derivatives were meant to be more user-friendly compared to other Linux distributions, and by this logic, work well with most computers (not that Arch doesn't). I assume it isn't because of a specific application right? Well, I guess it probably comes down to each person's hardware. But go Arch! \^O^/
And awful experience. Installed OK, but was hanging in various places on reboot, logoff etc. Ditched it quickly in favour of Ubuntu Desktop 14.04 (on same hardware) = NO ISSUE at all
