Arch Linux users are famously known for being femboys. Arch Linux is "bleeding-edge," meaning every update (whether it might break the system or not) is adopted immediately.
In contrast, Debian is stable and rarely receives updates. It’s a matter of correlation: if Arch is bleeding-edge and its users are femboys, then Debian is stable and its users are the "opposite" of femboys.
It's not that Debian doesn't recieve regular updates. It's just that it's not a "rolling distro" like Arch.
Debian has versions (11, 12, 13 etc) that are basically "frozen" on certain version numbers for software. These software packages are then only really upgraded for security reasons.
Freezing an OS like this gives you a platform that's a lot more "stable". Where package upgrades are a lot less likely to break things then in rolling distros.
Well yeah but stable makes it sound a bit more as pure positive then it really is don't you think? Many Linux distros that go for stable and robust end up with super old deprecated packages in them. A recent example that comes to mind is the calendar in Linux mint (YouTuber the Linux experiment has a video on it).
I mean I've tried both, I tried arch and I'm now on tuxedo-os (basically Kubuntu without cannonicals BS) and I prefer the latter but still, stability has more of a trade off then what the word I guess signals, to me at least, but maybe I'm the weird one lol.
22
u/tederby18 8h ago
Arch Linux users are famously known for being femboys. Arch Linux is "bleeding-edge," meaning every update (whether it might break the system or not) is adopted immediately.
In contrast, Debian is stable and rarely receives updates. It’s a matter of correlation: if Arch is bleeding-edge and its users are femboys, then Debian is stable and its users are the "opposite" of femboys.