Is Alpine really more stable than Arch+grsec+paxd packages? Considering it has a smaller userbase and uses it's own package manager?
I find if you don't update Arch obsessively and wait a week or two, then it is very stable.
I previously used a Macbook + Arch and had nothing but problems. But using a Thinkpad + Arch and being careful with updates and I've had zero of the issues I experienced non-stop last year.
The most important thing is hardware choice. Using good and common hardware means you eliminate about 90% of problems with Linux. Using stable software solves the other 9-10% of issues.
So my plan for alpine linux was to see how well a busy box + musl libc based distro would be for day to day use. That and its on disk size was mostly the motivation. The grsecurity stuff was less a focus to be honest. Stability wise as long as it doesn't oops too often i'm happy.
A counter to the wait a week or two idea: I remember the update that changed the md device numbers from 0->128 etc.. I hit that accidentally before it was on the site, then the next week didn't look at the site and it got changed back. Piddly stuff like this that you only find when you reboot starts to grate on me is all.
I'm not anti arch by any means, more just not wanting to constantly update with a rolling distro. I found a blog post about nix on the c720 and so I guess I will go buy one some upcoming week. My needs are pretty minimal though, browser+emacs+commandlineish stuff. The rest I can do on my macbook pro which is feeling to me to be more a desktop of late.
I find if you don't update Arch obsessively and wait a week or two, then it is very stable.
I previously used a Macbook + Arch and had nothing but problems. But using a Thinkpad + Arch and being careful with updates and I've had zero of the issues I experienced non-stop last year.
The most important thing is hardware choice. Using good and common hardware means you eliminate about 90% of problems with Linux. Using stable software solves the other 9-10% of issues.