I am currently using Windows on an older HP Laptop, which I intend to replace with a Framework 16 by next summer, but my Desktop PC at home has been running EndeavourOS, my first ever Linux distro, since last summer, so I have some Arch-based experience.
As a learning experience I’d like to install raw Arch, but I’m wondering if it makes sense as a primary OS on something that should be a stable system, since I intend to use the laptop for university. I am planning on using btrfs and timeshift, so it shouldn’t break too horribly, even if something goes wrong (and I don’t wanna jinx it, but so far my EndeavourOS pc has been entirely fine too, so I didn’t even run into such an issue yet), but depending on who you ask Arch is either the most stable distro they’ve ever used or bricked their pc ten seconds into the install process.
So now I’m curious on if you all think this is a stupid idea or if it should be fine. Should I try installing Arch and then for actual use replace it with another distro like Debian LTS, NixOS or something like Mint on a machine which fulfills a more critical role than my PC at home, or should I be alright rolling with Arch on my uni laptop?
As a side note, what’s your take on using Arch vs EndeavourOS? It’s roughly the same fundamentally, so is there any point in using Arch apart from the learning experience and being able to say “I use arch btw”? My reasoning for actually wanting to use it and not just wanting to set it up for the learning experience and then switching off to EOS or something entirely different is “I think it’s neat”, which is hardly a good reason long-term.
You must log in or register to comment.
Arch isn’t inherently unstable. It’s just that most users don’t maintain it properly. Tips:
- learn to backup for real: rsync, borg, etc. you broke something? Just back up to that image you made right before you updated ;)
- use flatpaks. It’s kind of hard to run into AUR or dependency issues if you’re as close to a base arch install as possible.
- read the maintenance page and understand it. You can’t just “yay” every week and be done with it. You need to know how to handle pacnew, read the wiki for manual interventions, look for errors and warnings in the pacman log, etc. it’s not hard at all once you figure it out, but it takes a little learning.
- you don’t need to update every day. If it’s working - you can just let it ride. If you don’t update forever, then just update your keyring first and you’ll be good to go.
Use what you like - it’s all stable enough.
Arch should be fine for university stuff. The main problem with Arch is not Arch itself, but all the software it tracks being very fresh. You’ll be pulling updates as they come down the line, and that may result in temporary bugs or day-to-day workflow changes - caused by the software developers themselves. I don’t think an Arch system is unusually unstable or prone to breaking, but last year they did brick everyone’s GRUB loaders by pushing an update too early (post-mortem here). It’s up to you, but if you want to err on the side of system/software stability I would go for Mint/OpenSUSE Tumbleweed/Debian.
I don’t have any practical experience with EndeavourOS but TMK it’s just preconfigured Arch and it uses the default repos, so that sounds good to me. Vanilla Arch is not inherently better or worse, it’s just a more minimal starting point.
I use my laptop for work all day every (week)day. It runs EndeavourOS and I haven’t had any problems - if anything I’ve encountered fewer annoyances than with any other distro I’ve tried to date (Pop, Fedora, Mint, OpenSUSE, Debian). I don’t use Btrfs but I do use Timeshift as well as Syncthing to back up files to a file server at home.
I haven’t felt the desire to install Arch, and TBH I’m not sure what the benefit might be because I’d just configure it to be basically the same as EOS anyway.
I think you can use Arch for university, but I have a few suggestions:
- Don’t update packages unless you have time to fix issues. Rare, but it happens, although usually minor.
- Never mess with greeters, kernel modifications, bootloaders, or anything else before login. Fixing issues may require a live USB and take some time. Avoid the temptation! (Ask how I know…)
- Use Flatpak where you can for increased stability by way of fewer packages to update.
Of course, you could also use a non-rolling release distro. Nothing wrong with that.
Excuse me if this is a bit of a dumb question, as I have never particularly worried about packaging methods and simply installed what I needed from the official Arch packages or AUR, but how does Flatpak lead to fewer updates? I know it sandboxes things, that’s why I’ve been interested in it for applications I don’t quite trust like Discord, but I never got around to actually switching applications of that sort over and trying the format out.
Speaking of Discord, hooking that out of the “normal packages”, aka everything I update via yay, would be beneficial anyways, since it’s the only thing that forces me to update my system by saying how I’m oh so lucky about a new update coming out and I don’t wanna mess with partial system updates. That’s kinda besides the point though, I just wanted to complain.
For discord you could tell it not to prompt you to update by editing the config.
So you can update it whenever you want to.
Because of course the arch wiki has the info needed. I should’ve just checked there from the start, thanks!
Good question. Flatpak doesn’t lead to fewer updates overall, but it does lead to fewer system packages installed via pacman or yay, which can run into dependency conflicts unlike Flatpak.
Flatpak provides a common runtime upon which different applications can be installed via containers, much like apps on a phone. You can then adjust the permissions for each app such as which directories it can access. It’s kind of like installing Firefox (e.g. Flatpak) and then a Firefox extension such as uBlock Origin (e.g. LibreOffice). It doesn’t matter if you’re on Ubuntu, Fedora, or Arch, from the extension’s perspective it’s the same old Firefox and doesn’t touch anything else on your computer. This means uninstalling is clean and it has no dependencies on other packages installed.
The disadvantage with Flatpak is they can be slower (sometimes not even noticeable) and take up more space, although the runtime can be re-used between Flatpak applications. Personally, I like Flatpak for large GUI applications like LibreOffice, which has 170+ dependencies if installed via pacman.
I’m not an expert, but hope this helps. For more/better info, I recommend reading https://itsfoss.com/what-is-flatpak/.
Huh, neat. On my current EOS Desktop PC it’s a bit too late to uninstall everything and reinstall it as a Flatpak, but I’ll keep that in mind for new Linux installs. Thank you :3
You’ll be fine as long as you maintain the system, don’t wait too long between updates, and pay attention to the output when you do. I’m running arch on everything - work laptop, a spare laptop, and a server (nas, Plex, home assistant, etc) - two of which are critical systems for me. I use ZFS for all storage pools, including root, and zfsbootmenu, so I can rollback to a previous snapshot if I ever need to or the system won’t boot.
I use Arch for all my computers, including my “critical” systems. I only do full upgrades when I know I have the time to troubleshoot something broken, but rarely need to do so.
More than this, I actually use Arch as the OS for thousands of computers for my work that end up in customer hands, who expect stability. I’m not sure at what point it stops being Arch, though - I pin the package repositories to internal mirrors with fixed package distributions from specific dates to control the software that goes to them, so it’s not really rolling release anymore I guess - I control the releases and when updates go out.
Arch is what you make of it. My Arch project desktop pc is constantly shifting and breaking and needing attention as I continually improve it and play with things. My Arch laptop that runs my life and work and is the most important computer I own is a paragon of stability and perfect functioning.
I actually use Arch as the OS for thousands of computers for my work that end up in customer hands, who expect stability.
Whoa… Do you work at Steam?
Nope 😂 though, despite their decision obviously having nothing to do with me, I did find it to be somewhat flattering and a bit reassuring that the fine Valve engineers seemed to make similar decisions to me.
Here’s another vote for EndeavourOS if you need it. I run BTRFS and timeshift-autosnap, but I’ve never needed to use it. Like the other poster said, I’ve had minor annoyances and brief package conflicts, but nothing critical has ever gone awry.
so is there any point in using Arch apart from the learning experience and being able to say “I use arch btw”?
No. Except Arch support forums only allows raw Arch for some reason, but EndeavourOS also has a forum.
Any distro is “stable” if you know how to use it.
Sounds like you’re in a good place with Endeavour, why not stick to it?
Any distro is “stable” if you know how to use it.
A-bleeping-men. All GNU/Linux distros are equally good.
They are all good, but Hanna Montana Linux is great.
If the goal is to have the most up to date bleeding edge software, but have it on a critical machine, consider immutable distro like Fedora Silverblue or OpenSuse Aeon. Especially the latter will be just days behind Arch, and if an update breaks something you just roll back and try updating again in a week.
I used Silverblue as my main work system and this saved me a few times.
Yeahh immutable system is the way, I spent so much energy reinstalling systems that felt dirty and slow or just distro hopping. Then I tried NixOS believe me I’m not going anywhere else
I don’t know if you should, but you can. I use Artix for my only computer (also used for uni). It never killed itself. I did once, which was my fault. But I just fixed it.
but depending on who you ask Arch is either the most stable distro they’ve ever used or bricked their pc ten seconds into the install process
This very funny, and true. Arch is almost as stable as its user :)
deleted by creator
I’d say yes, but don’t change your GRUB theme right before a presentation.
Maybe openSUSE would be a better pick.
I used to daily drive arch, until university, when I got frustrated at the issues it caused me and the time I needed to solve them.
I’d recommend fedora if you want real solid stability.
Laptop is fine as a tinkering device, but if you have something critical it’s best not to trust a rolling release. I would recommend Fedora Silverblue or something else immutable that automatically updates and does not have a lot of incompatibility issues.
Arch is not something to be relying on consistently. You can make it stable, but then one day you will do a yay -Syu and all of a sudden your critical machine is offline pending troubleshooting that is not required with more stable distros.
EOS is the best out of the box Arch experience I’ve had, it makes it a lot more user friendly than just the base, and it can be customized just as much as the base. When I was running Arch I was running EOS and it was good for what I needed, although I have had it basically brick itself with an update. I am currently running Fedora Silverblue on my laptop and it’s been very stable.
yay -Syu
you don’t use yay do you
Edit: typing
yaywithout any other argument defaults toyay -Syuso there’s no reason to type it outI guess I didn’t know yay by itself as a command was an alias for pacman -Syu, guess I’ve just always been redundantly using -Syu.
If you have the time + know how to keep up with Arch, and want the latest packages or need the latest drivers, then go for it.
If you only want an Arch install experience, then fire up a virtual machine and stick with Endeavor or switch to a stable release like Debian on bare metal.
But most importantly, if it brings you value (in productivity or experience) then whatever you decide isn’t a stupid decision.
