then the blame/fault shifts to the user, not the system
Nah, lol. Not when lots of other systems manage to not break userspace on random updates.
You can claim that blame shifts to the user, but I’m still blaming the shitty system.
In a good system, you can trust that updates are well-vetted already before they’re pushed to average users, and you don’t need to check the news or anything else before updating. You can even set updates to be automatic with a high degree of confidence that it won’t mess anything up for you. (Imagine that, the computer automatically updating itself, saving you the trouble of doing it manually… What a thought!)
Youre right for most systems that are advertised as stable. Arch however is rolling release, so this doesnt apply. You get package updates as soon as theyre available pretty much. So no, the fault lies with the user when it comes to arch 99% of the time
Edit: i also said the blame shifts to the user if they don’t do something the maintainers specifically say you should do before every update. If you check the arch news, update, and it breaks then yes, the fault is with the maintainer. However this rarely happens nowadays. Ive been on arch for almost 6 years and have not had to do a reinstall ever.
“Good” means different things in different contexts. Here you mean it as something like “user friendly”. Of course, there are other priorities that someone else could call “good”. It’s not a helpful word for honest debate, but it’s very convenient for hiding a bunch of semantic puns and confused reasoning behind.
Nah, lol. Not when lots of other systems manage to not break userspace on random updates.
You can claim that blame shifts to the user, but I’m still blaming the shitty system.
In a good system, you can trust that updates are well-vetted already before they’re pushed to average users, and you don’t need to check the news or anything else before updating. You can even set updates to be automatic with a high degree of confidence that it won’t mess anything up for you. (Imagine that, the computer automatically updating itself, saving you the trouble of doing it manually… What a thought!)
Youre right for most systems that are advertised as stable. Arch however is rolling release, so this doesnt apply. You get package updates as soon as theyre available pretty much. So no, the fault lies with the user when it comes to arch 99% of the time
Edit: i also said the blame shifts to the user if they don’t do something the maintainers specifically say you should do before every update. If you check the arch news, update, and it breaks then yes, the fault is with the maintainer. However this rarely happens nowadays. Ive been on arch for almost 6 years and have not had to do a reinstall ever.
“Good” means different things in different contexts. Here you mean it as something like “user friendly”. Of course, there are other priorities that someone else could call “good”. It’s not a helpful word for honest debate, but it’s very convenient for hiding a bunch of semantic puns and confused reasoning behind.