funny

>>105737603 (OP)
*gasp* *completely shocked* a datacenter distro mirror uses a common server distro for archlinux how can this be?!

>>105737654
this, official archlinux servers do run arch

>>105737603 (OP)
They host many linux distros, why the fuck would they be running Arsch on a server lol

>>105737603 (OP)
Why is this funny? Arch Linux is for desktop use, not for running servers. It's like saying it's funny that people who work at Ferrari are driving Toyotas in their daily life.

Does Arch have a server version?

>>105737603 (OP)
do you think it's a competition?

>>105737603 (OP)
looks like ya fucked up OP, ya faggot

>>105737603 (OP)
Wow, your post really offended the autists. Sad that they can't take a joke. Maybe they don't understand humor?

it's a mirror moran

>>105737767
I did it for a while with LTS kernel. Not worth. Just run Debian on servers.

>>105737767
No, but nobody stops you from using arch as a server. I do.

>>105737833
t. op

>>105737603 (OP)
it's a university server that hosts a bunch of mirrors for different distros, what's your point?

>>105737760
Explain, in simple words, why Arch is unsuitable for servers.

>>105738342
1. Rolling Release Model:
Arch is a rolling release distribution, meaning its repositories constantly receive updates, including new versions of the Linux kernel and other software.

This contrasts with distributions like Debian, which have stable release cycles with well-tested packages.
While this provides access to the latest software, it can also lead to instability as new packages may not be fully tested before being released.

2. Potential for Breakages:
The frequent updates in Arch can sometimes cause packages to break or require manual intervention to resolve issues.
This can be problematic in a server environment where downtime or unexpected behavior is undesirable.
While some users report minimal issues, the potential for breakage exists and requires careful management and monitoring.

3. Lack of LTS Support:
Unlike some distributions, Arch doesn't offer Long-Term Support (LTS) versions of packages.
This means that even if a particular version of a package is stable, it will eventually be replaced with a newer, potentially unstable version.
This can be a significant concern for servers that need to maintain a stable environment for extended periods.

4. Need for Manual Intervention:
Arch often requires manual intervention during updates, especially when major package versions are involved.
This can be time-consuming and require a deep understanding of the system to resolve potential issues.
In a production server environment, this can lead to significant downtime if issues arise.

5. Not Designed for Minimal Configurations:
Arch is designed to be highly customizable, but this also means it doesn't come with pre-configured server setups.
Users need to manually configure various aspects of the server, which can be challenging for those unfamiliar with Arch or server administration.
Distributions like Debian or Ubuntu offer pre-configured server images with commonly used services and configurations.

>>105737603 (OP)
and some people still say arch is decent for home servers

>>105738414
some people think they are "pros" at networking because they bought ubiquiti trash hardware
retards are everywhere

>>105738342
more updoot = potential breakage
Ubuntu LTS only has security update. Normal Ubuntu is just as fragile as Arch.

>>105738342
The archsissies are unable to answer this without malding, since the only valid answer is "because it's unstable" kek

>>105738504
Are there even any free distros that provide LTS branch that isn't a Debian/Ubuntu LTS derivative?

>>105738478
>Ubuntu LTS only has security update.
the kernel version also get updated once every 6/7 months (ubuntu desktop), also new nvidia drivers.

>>105738531
OpenSUSE comes to mind
But the correct thing to use is to just use Debian. Not sure why you wrote that off. Debian is free

>>105738531
CentOS Stream have 5 years

>>105738551
>just use Debian
Seems like Debian 13 will use nvidia 550. so no functional wayland support, and no support for RTX 50xx

>>105738531
if you need lts the only answer is rhel/almalinux/rockylinux
rhel is a behemot, they have real clients like gvt, globhomos, banks and militaries, they actually have very streamlined processes to keep the distro as stable as possible with stable meaning predictable, working and secure.
also phoronix regularly benchmark rhel/centos and it performs very well, unless you have very recent hardware in your server you have no reason to not use current stable rhel or any binary-compatible distro.

>>105738575
Nigga I'm using Debian 13 right now with Plasma+Wayland on Nvidia drivers.

>>105738504
>malding
soi terminology

>>105738388
You don't need to syu arch you know. You can just automatically update individual packages that are security critical or not update at all if that's the selling point. Also I'm pretty sure manual intervention is very rare and the only time I experienced it personally it was for a firmware package which you'd never need to update if your server hardware works.

>>105738811
Partial upgrades are not supported.

>>105738388
thank you grok

>>105737654
You're so cute and silly, you butt hurt silly boy! :3

>>105738814
Literally are. You can update any packages you want individually.

>>105737603 (OP)
arch-xisters it's over for us

>>105738388
Using AI to respond to retarded questions is kinda based.

>>105738835
Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean that it's a good idea, especially on a fucking server.

>>105738861
No, you don't understand what you're reading. Updating an individual package will update the deps that it needs alongside too. Why would you ever want to not update those? The point is that you're not forced to update more dangerous shit like the kernel or unrelated system shit that you don't need the latest version of. I don't think it's a good idea to use outdated deps with latest software on any distribution.

>>105737603 (OP)
das right bitch
arch is for tinkertrannies
bubuntu is for real work

>>105737654
desu modern ubuntu is kind of hellish to deal with even on a server.

>>105738861
>do not do this or your system will break
>do not do that or your system will break
>it might break anyway though, resolve it yourself
>if your program is not on our repo it will break eventually. Hope you're ready to rebuild it
>you can't simply "fix" what we broke by doing this thing. Updoot your system now.
I can't imagine living like this.

>>105737603 (OP)
What's the problem here? I would have used Debian too, but hey

>>105737603 (OP)
This doesn't mean the server runs gnome and snap

>>105738861
Is this not true for every distro? If a new package is linked against a new version of a library, will you not need to upgrade both the package itself as well as the library?

>>105738908
You don't seem to get what shared libraries are.
>>105739011
Other distros only really update when a new version of the whole distro is released, or they are like gentoo where you need to rebuild the dependencies too. If Arch would properly manage dependencies it would basically only allow full upgrades. But arch devs are lazy fucks.

>>105737603 (OP)
triggering archfags shouldn't be this easy

>>105739165
Man, if you literally never want to update then you can do that on arch. It keeps keys updated now.

>>105739375
Sure thing but people still want minor updates which don't break shit and want to do so painlessly. Arch simply isn't suited for the task.

>>105739554
Yeah, nah I don't know that feeling. I like either never updating or having the latest software if I do update. I don't understand the appeal of choosing some random specific old version unless there is a known regression. I've never seen regressions that bothered me in any server software I used.

>>105737603 (OP)
yes, if you need reliability then arch is the worst choice