Message-ID: <a19e48f63fc35b765ee7a691dcbd9389224ae988.camel@riseup.net>
Subject: Re: Thinking about using Alpine edge on my desktop, how stable is
 it?
From: Ralf Mardorf <ralf-mardorf@riseup.net>
To: ~alpine/users@lists.alpinelinux.org
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2025 10:56:48 +0200
In-Reply-To: <DB8F342E-AD28-415A-8FB2-25E2AC73CFF2@posteo.net>
References: <5297f63e-53ba-4591-837b-aac9436cb4d9@camelia.dev>
		 <OWnxUBI--F-9@keemail.me>
	 <DB8F342E-AD28-415A-8FB2-25E2AC73CFF2@posteo.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

On Mon, 2025-08-04 at 07:59 +0000, Sertonix wrote:
> I came from Arch to Alpine (edge) on my desktop and consider them
> similar.

Hi,

I use Arch Linux for my daily desktop PC tasks and have also installed
Alpine on this Linux-multi-boot desktop PC. The only thing Alpine and
Arch have in common is that they are both user-centric rather than user-
friendly. Let's take BusyBox, "The Swiss Army knife of Embedded Linux",
as an example. For good reason, you don't usually use a Swiss Army knife
when eating at a restaurant or at home at the kitchen table.

The rolling release approach is also completely different in Arch than
in Alpine, which must also be taken into account with regard to the OP's
question. A computer that needs to be stable for productive work, but is
only intended for a computer geek and not for inexperienced employees,
can use Arch, otherwise, you would even have to use an LTS major distro.
However, Alpine edge cannot even be compared to the rolling release
approach of Arch. There are various reasons for this, but apart from the
kind of quality management, something as simple as the use of glibc and
systemd makes direct appling of the software from upstream way easier,
so potentially safer and more stable.

Regards,
Ralf