It took me like 3 hours to install stupid mariadb on my fucking arch. From the service not beeing able to start over not finding the correct base dir to permission problems in the data dir.
Well, after reading the wiki it was actually pretty easy (only minor problems) ...

Today I learned two things:
- I must be fucking dumb
- Reading the manual instead of guessing helps a lot when installing stuff on linux

Problem one;
Arch

@Linux arch is love, arch is life

@host127001

Have you tried install mariaDB on a debian based systems? It takes 1 minute and that includes the time to download it.

Using arch is all good and well when one wants to experiment ( do not use in production ). If you want a stable system @Linux is correct.

@Linux Would not take much longer on my arch either.
1. Pacman -S
2. Change permission on data dir
3. Run mysql_install_db

But if you are as dumb as me you only execute step 1 and expect it to work.

@Linux I installed mariadb pretty quick myself, don't know why it was a hard problem in this case

@MateTea42
That's what I have said on this forum since I joined. Using Arch is not a good option even if you are a developer that develop stuff either. Because Arch is not stable and everything is subject to change in the Arch ecosystem.

@Linux arch has been stable for me for 5 years, my arch install has survived two laptops.

@PerfectAsshole It all depends what you consider stable. I used Arch for a year with no real problems. However things do tend to change and living on the cutting edge can lead to problems with library versions for your projects (depending on how you set it up). A friend of mine uses Arch with btrfs. In the end you still need to add a bit of extra work into Arch.

@PerfectAsshole
I consider stuff stable when it is suited for enterprise use. Arch does not fit in that category.

@MateTea42 the library problem I believe you're talking about can be solved by a good CI setup. as for the extra work it really depends on the person, a little extra maintenance maybe once a month is worth it to me to not have to deal with outdated packages and distro upgrades every few years.

@Linux well by that definition that would be debian, red hat, and maybe centos. but I say that's the same as above, depends on the person managing it all

@PerfectAsshole
For me, Debian <3

@Linux yeah I like debian for servers myself, only problem I have with it is that since it strives for stability above everything else which makes it harder to keep package versions updated

@PerfectAsshole
I sometimes use 3rd party repos for that. So it is not harder really.

@Linux might have to look into it more, the last time I did that I had a system more unstable than a lfs server

@Zennoe
Dude, my first distro was SuSE 8.1

Just follow arch wiki. Never had problem on installing in literally anything on Arch.

@vikaskr installing is not a problem on Arch. The statement a lot of people including myself are making is: new packages reduce stability of your system because they aren't battle proof. That is why you should not use Arch for a server.

@MateTea42 yeah I understood. But to rant is saying it is tough to install.

@vikaskr the rant is saying i am too dumb to install :D