1."Trust the upstream all the time" If you have ever been in software development you should know that new software versions is bound to have regressions on time or another. What end-user want is reliablity not troubles. I know your terminology and understandig for reliablity bar might be pretty low.I understand that. Why do you have a useless testing repo when nothing is really tested in Arch? Package moving to stable has the poorest criteria in Arch compared any leading linux distro. Arch bug reports are generally a farce. You are 95% of times asked to report upstream, why the hell do you have a bug reporting?
2. delete all the configurations files all the time, instead of asking for user-decision and one day you will most likely end up with a non-bootable system for sure.
3. AUR is low quality control and you want to trust AUR-helper application for updating your apps. Good-luck.
I dont specifically recommend ubuntu user-generated PPAs as well.
Re: Interesting read
1."Trust the upstream all the time"
If you have ever been in software development you should know that new software versions is bound to have regressions on time or another. What end-user want is reliablity not troubles. I know your terminology and understandig for reliablity bar might be pretty low.I understand that. Why do you have a useless testing repo when nothing is really tested in Arch? Package moving to stable has the poorest criteria in Arch compared any leading linux distro. Arch bug reports are generally a farce. You are 95% of times asked to report upstream, why the hell do you have a bug reporting?
2. delete all the configurations files all the time, instead of asking for user-decision and one day you will most likely end up with a non-bootable system for sure.
3. AUR is low quality control and you want to trust AUR-helper application for updating your apps. Good-luck.
I dont specifically recommend ubuntu user-generated PPAs as well.
Arch Linux is for KISS for their Devs not users.