Pacman is very fast. The tradeoff is that it isn’t as “thoughtful” when it runs. It doesn’t have the same protections as apt or dnf. I especially like dnf as you can undo any operation.
Power outages do happen, and I’m pretty sure 90% of the people on this community are not using an UPS.
Given enough users and enough time, it’s inevitable that a power outage will happen to some people at an inopportune moment, like while updating an important package like the kernel.
Blaming the user for this is not fair, it’s just dumb bad luck.
That said, OP could have done a bit more to fix the issue instead of being an angry man yelling at the cloud. When you’re using Arch, the expectation is that you are able to fix relatively simple problems like this, or that you’re at least willing to learn it. If you find yourself getting angry when Arch doesn’t hold your hand, you probably shouldn’t have chosen Arch.
Why would Arch do this?
Pacman is very fast. The tradeoff is that it isn’t as “thoughtful” when it runs. It doesn’t have the same protections as apt or dnf. I especially like dnf as you can undo any operation.
Power outages do happen, and I’m pretty sure 90% of the people on this community are not using an UPS.
Given enough users and enough time, it’s inevitable that a power outage will happen to some people at an inopportune moment, like while updating an important package like the kernel.
Blaming the user for this is not fair, it’s just dumb bad luck.
That said, OP could have done a bit more to fix the issue instead of being an angry man yelling at the cloud. When you’re using Arch, the expectation is that you are able to fix relatively simple problems like this, or that you’re at least willing to learn it. If you find yourself getting angry when Arch doesn’t hold your hand, you probably shouldn’t have chosen Arch.
To be fair a lot of Linux distros and other operating systems try to be careful on how they do things. Arch is the odd man out.
How exactly?
Pacman is very fast at the cost of safety checks and verification