It really rocks!

They are unstable from a software compatibility perspective where every updates has a worrying chance of breaking compatibility with old “stale” software (software not managed/distributed by the distro itself), but that does not necessarily means unstable from a system stability perspective. If there was some kind of “system stability” scale for distros i would judge archlinux somewhere in the middle. And, with the nature of how linux development is you might actually get better system stability due to it having fresher software that better supports your hardware. That’s the main reason to try and be a the bleeding edge of desktop linux, sometimes you only get a few shallow cuts and stuff actually functions better.

Any serious breakage such as an unbootable or unusable system is supposedly very rare and only affects a minor portion of the users, with any change going through a long process that hopefully catches it before any harm is done. I do realize the irony of building a system restore functionality for precisely this case and me pushing against it. Again, I just think it should be made nearly bulletproof before it’s pushed into the users.

I’ve been using Arch for nearly 20 years and noted that things are a hell of a lot more stable than it used to be. It’s also hard to excuse it since it has grown and matured so much, it’s not a niche distro nobody knows anymore, even SteamOS is now based on it (though the immutability gives it a huge edge and essentially eliminates the aforementioned issue without relying on the, well meaning, but probably flawed system restore thingy).

Anyway, in my judgement, CachyOS being a downstream distro with a lot less manpower behind it should be quite a bit more careful when introducing such fundamental changes. I can’t say how bad it is affecting their user, it’s up to then to know that and if so hopefully change the defaults or at least better educate the user of the experimental nature of it.

I think the fault here is at Cachy OS for shipping experimental and advanced stuff as if it is ready for most users.

When I installed it recently on an old machine I purposefully stayed away from these fancy options and chose EXT4 + Grub. I admit having some bad memories about casually using btrfs also made my choice easy. No, most users don’t want to have to baby sit their file system.

Anyway, what even is the point of a system restore functionality if it hasn’t been thoroughly battle tested? They should have been behind an “ADVANCED/EXPERIMENTAL” disclaimer or something until it is very hard to break (including brtrfs not borking itself) and actually rescues users from a bad time rather than creating more problems.

The AMD part is actually the opposite, since AMD drivers on Linux can’t do HDMI 2.1, but NVidia can.

Thats not quite true, you can do HDR with 4k @ 120hz and HDMI 2.0 but you will be limited to 8bits per channel of which will exhibit pronounced chroma banding, specially noticible in skies gradients. If you lower either resoltution or frequency you can get 10bit back too.

HDMI 2.0 can also support 4k 120hz but it will be limited to 4:2:2 chroma subsampling. It’s fine for the typical TV viewing distance and 2x hidpi scaling but sucks for desktop usage, specially at no hidpi scaling.

You can also get a DP 1.4 to HDMI 2.1 adapter and get full HDR 10bit color and 4:4:4 chroma 4k@120hz at the same time, no problem. The trouble is usually VRR, which tends to be very finicky or not work at al… :(

I have a x220 that fell 1 meter lid first (and open) on the floor and… all I got was a crack on one of the posts inside the lid. Still fine to this day, in fact, still my number one laptop lol.

Sure, but Google has no control over any forks of Chromium. They can’t control Edge, or Brave, or Vivaldi

Sorry but that’s not how it goes, Google can exert control on forks by increasing the difficulty of maintaining changes. The forks have a vested interest in staying compatible with upstream to benefit from Chromium changes over time, which unfortunately means they avoid making any deep changes to the code. None of the Chromium forks are hard ones, unlike Chromium itself which was a hardfork of Apple’s webkit, which in turn was a hard fork off KDE’s KHTML.

Also, Mozilla should DEFINITELY NOT adopt Chromium. We need diversity in web browsers, the idea is that by having different user agents we give the user more bargain power over how they want to browse the web. Remember, Google, Microsoft and Apple are NOT your friends, all they want is to ransack everything and increase their shareholder values. If they can turn the web proprietary and fully locked down, they will.

I agree, installing old linux was a great way of learning unix commands and how computers works, plus you got really good at administering linux computers. But of course, that only works out if you have a vested interest in computers already and quite a bit of free time, so I’m also glad all “normal” folks nowadays can get an awesome linux experience without having to put much effort at all.

Maybe he was using Vesa basic graphics mode in the other distros?

Are you from the future? Please tell us more about the RDNA4 architecture if so :)