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.
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.
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?
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.
I’d say yes, but don’t change your GRUB theme right before a presentation.
Maybe openSUSE would be a better pick.
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.
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.
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?
being unemployed is a requirement for using arch. all the free time you spend trying to get things working .I use arch btw.
