I was Nobara user, then I am using Fedora right now. I want to use things like Hyprland etc. and ya know, Its damn cool to say I am using arch btw. So I’ve decided to use Arch Linux. But everyone says its always breaking and gives problems. That’s because of users, not OS… right? I love to deal with problems but I don’t want to waste my time. Is Arch really problemful OS? Should I use it? I know what to do with setup/ usage, the hardness of Arch is not problem for me but I am just concerned about the mindset “Arch always gets broken”.

  • Shareni@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    That’s because of users, not OS… right?

    It’s a factor, but constantly upgrading to the newest version of software does come with risks. I’ve had Arch and derivatives fail to boot on multiple devices plenty of times after an update.

    Some people say that they run arch for years without having any issues, but that’s either extreme luck or bs.

    I love to deal with problems but I don’t want to waste my time.

    You can usually just use a btrfs snapshot to rollback, boot, and try to update later. But there were situations when I had to use arch-chroot, and it can be problematic to install new packages in that situation.

    All setups have tradeoffs, but I’d wholeheartedly suggest a stable distro like MX and nix + home-manager. It avoids all of the previously mentioned issues, and comes with other benefits. Do note that you might need to make or copy a hyprland.desktop file because home-manager can only alter files in your ~.