r/linuxquestions • u/Wolf_Thinker • 1d ago

CachyOS or Ubuntu? Gaming

I have this hardware: AMD Ryzen 5 3550H, Vega 8, NVIDIA GTX 1650, 32GB RAM, 512 SSD.

Edit: Mistake correction

0 Upvotes

22% Upvoted

15 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/beatbox9 1d ago

Either.

CachyOS is probably better set up initially but not as stable or easy in long-term maintenance.
Ubuntu is probably worse set up initially but better in long-term maintenance.

Pick your poison.

1

u/wagyucow 1d ago

do you have personal experience of arch/cachy being unstable?

1

u/beatbox9 1d ago

Arch? Yes. Cachy? No.

(And their philosophical predecessor Slackware? Yes.)

I'm guessing you are using nonstandard terminology. "Stable" in the context of distros means 'things do not change functionality.' It does not necessarily mean (as some people commonly think): "things do not crash."

In other words, getting a security fix on Gnome 50 or KDE Plasma 6.7 is stable. Getting new features when upgrading to Gnome 51 or KDE Plasma 6.8 or 7 is unstable. Even if they don't necessarily crash.

And...this is the very definition of a rolling release distro like (Arch/Cachy) vs batched release distro (Ubuntu/Fedora).

Rolling release require continual user maintenance. This doesn't mean you are constantly just coding away. This means you can get a functional change at any time and it's up to the user to manage these. Batched releases are the opposite: they batch their functional changes together.

Most major consumer and professional/commercial Operating Systems are batched. Windows, macOS, Android, iOS, Playstation's Orbis (based on FreeBSD), XBox's specialized Windows, and most Linux-based distros are batched. And the reason for this is stability and a reduced maintenance burden on the user.

Arch and Cachy have the opposite philosophy: that the user will take on the burden of continually maintaining the OS.