It's my experience that Ubuntu and Fedora break if you don't upgrade often (and then suddenly do after a year), while arch doesn't... Which is interesting, since it's supposed to be the other way around...

I think it's because Fedora and Ubuntu add a lot of new things, while arch just updates it's packages.

[–] Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago (4 children)

More please. Getting ready to switch from Windows to Linux, been making sure I can install all the -arr I want and get games running, but in Mint.

Now I'm hitting the brakes hard. It's Arch if that means I don't have this headache. I'll need to start over learning, but it'll be worth it.

[–] DesolateMood@lemm.ee 5 points 1 month ago

As long as you update frequently (I do it whenever I think about it, usually once every few days to a week) you shouldn't run into any issues

[–] punkfungus@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago

I've had two different arch based distros have issues when trying to update after long periods. I also had an Ubuntu server fail completely when doing a major version upgrade and had to restore it from backup. But then again I've also had no trouble updating an Ubuntu machine that was a couple years behind.

I'm on Fedora now for my desktop and it's been great so far, but I also do updates at least weekly. My advice would be if you expect to go months between updates your best choice is probably Debian.

[–] SomethingBurger@jlai.lu 2 points 1 month ago

I recently updated an old laptop from Ubuntu 16 to 24 with no issues whatsoever. Do not start with Arch if you don't have any Linux experience yet.

[–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Honestly if you are that worried about updates breaking stuff, you might be better off using an immutable distro. These work using images and/or snapshots so it's easy to rollback if something goes wrong. It's also just less likely to go wrong as you aren't upgrading individual packages as much, but rather the base system as a whole. Both Fedora and Open Suse have atomic/immutable variants with derivatives like Universal Blue providing ready to go setups for specific use cases like gaming and workstation use.

Alternatively the likes of Debian rarely break because of updates as everything is thoroughly tested before deployment. Gentoo and void are the same deal but in rolling release format so they are at least somewhat up to date while still being quite well tested.

[–] Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Well people were on here saying they do a clean reinstall, backing up their computer and doing a reinstall whenever there's an update. Certainly don't want to go through that hassle.

The idea of an immutable distro sounds pretty good, but I'm willing to do updates pretty often so I'm probably going to end up taking the risk quote unquote of Linux Mint.

[–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

I don't think you have interpreted that correctly. People tend to reinstall when changing versions, for example from Ubuntu 22.04 to 24.04. That isn't the same as doing updates.

[–] bitwolf@lemmy.one 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Fedora upgrades are very reliable. I've never had one fail, 24 upgrades and counting.

[–] whats_all_this_then@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Was gonna say this. As long as you run dnf update before you upgrade and make sure there aren't any left (you know, like their upgrade dpcs explicitly tell you to), you're chilling.

Only issues I've had with fedora upgrades so far are plasma incompatibilities (not a fedora issue) and nvidia bullshit (not a fedora issue).

[–] timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago

Eh, I leave fedora for a while and come back and it's fine. Never had it break and I've been using it consistently since like 27.