Arch and endeavour should fall under the same category. You are more likely to break your system, but tinkerers love how barebones those are. I have not broken arch in the 4 years that I used it, but I did dodge a few updates which would have nuked my system. Fedora will be more stable, and it will get fewer breaking changes due to it’s point release schedule.
Could be an NVIDIA issue where the fact the external display is connected to the dGPU is causing issues. Nouveau optimus support(rather lack of it) for quattro could also be leading to the issue.
I feel the same. My entry distro was ubuntu, and every time I updated major version the whole installation exploded and i had to reinstall it from scratch.
Luckly for me now i use Debian and updating major release is smooth af. Already went through 3 major updates and 0 problems.
Just swap to Debian, Valve. And snap is engineered to waste your time, imo.
This is not an issue of what Distro Valve chose to use (SteamOS used Debian now it uses Arch) but is on Canonical for how they package it. I have just been dipping my toes into Linux lately and have been using Manjaro and Nobara and they have been working great for gaming and every day use… Until I play a game like Finals and have to swap to windows.
As far as I know, SteamOS is already based on Debian. The dev is complaining about users trying to install steam on their own Ubuntu installs, not SteamOS.
EDIT: nvm, it used to be Debian, but the newer versions for steamdeck are based on Arch. Apparently they wanted rolling updates so that it would be easier to push out changes more frequently.
I know the “Arch BTW” meme exists for a reason, but one of the reasons I haven’t been able to drag myself away from Arch-based distros in recent years is that it allows me to always have current versions of my software while also just not having to care about all this appimage/flatpak/snap brouhaha.
I guess it’s somewhat of a “pick your poison” kind of situation, but I find dealing with the typical complaints about Arch based distros to be both less of a problem than detractors would have you believe, and less of a headache than having to pick one of three competing alternative packaging approaches, or worse, to use a mix of them all. Standing on the sidelines of the topic it seems like a small number of people really like that these options exist, and I’m happy for those people. But mostly I’m grateful that I don’t have to care about this kind of thing.
Edited to add: Seeing how this thread has developed in the past 5 hours convinces me anew that “on the sidelines” is where I want to stay on this topic. 😁
I think if we could drag users (at least gamers) away from these Debian/Ubuntu based distros we could have developers just shipping packages that wouldn’t need to be compatible with some ancient LTS library release, and maybe we wouldn’t need appimage/flatpak/snap at all anymore (or at least only in rare cases).
What about in unstable or testing? I moved to Arch from Debian because I wanted faster releases and it just made sense to move to rolling instead of testing Debian install.
I think Debian has a place in the Desktop market, it’s just not gamers or anyone wanting anything new (unless they of course go the flatpak route). Not a perfect analogy, but it’s kinda like gaming on Windows 7 these days because it “just works” for you. Sure you can, but you’re not getting the best of anything that way and all the underlying libraries are outdated and some things just aren’t going to work at all.
From my perspective as someone who is both getting into gaming on Linux and also not much of a power user, Arch would have to make the installation and maintenance process a lot simpler to attract more people, and I’m not sure that’s something they actually want to do.
Looking at the official Arch installation guide, the average gamer may be overwhelmed by the process here, especially if they’re not comfortable with the terminal. Something like Linux Mint, on the other hand, has a built-in GUI installer with reasonable partitioning defaults, and it comes packaged with stuff like an app manger and update manager, something that will feel much more familiar to someone coming from windows.
100% all this. Canonical has been pushing snaps for awhile, and I wonder if the 12 year LTS for Ubuntu is part of that strategy - want something newer? It’s in the snap store. snap is terrible, worse than flakpak and appimage - but just as you say, as an arch user I don’t have to care. Whatever I want is probably in the AUR if not the main repos. Rolling distros, done right (arch), are an amazing experience.
I distribute an app I made for Linux, macOS and Windows. The Linux version I only have available as a .deb. Released recently and has about 200 users so far, but definitely exists. No Arch user contacted me yet.
When folks start wanting it, someone will package it for the AUR, or if it becomes even somewhat mainstream it will end up in the main repos eventually.
Possibly, though I wonder how updates would work then. Currently I have a Debian repository that contains a single package, and installing the .deb from my website also installs the repository so you get updates as with any other package.
If someone repackages it on AUR, I guess they will also need to update it every time I update the .deb, so it’s always behind? Of course it would be better if I provided a first party package for AUR, but I can spend time on that when there is actual interest. Most of my users are on Windows anyway.
Usually what you describe is what they do. Someone “owns” the AUR package (and it’s not quite literally any random user IIRC - you have to be accepted as an AUR maintainer I think) and they then take on the responsibility to repackage it whenever the author (you) releases a new version. There is also a mechanism for users to flag the AUR package as out of date in case that maintainer misses a release, and if they abandon it (or even if folks just don’t like how they package it) someone else can package it, assuming someone else wants to.
Sometimes the AUR maintainer is the dev themselves. I can’t think of a good example currently, but I know I’ve seen it before.
I don’t know the process for how things end up in the official repos, but I would guess it’s similar to however any other distros identify software they want to officially package.
I know you already got another answer, but - it’s very rare that any software for Linux exists that is both 1) not present in the official Arch repos, and also 2) not packaged by a user for the AUR.
Probably 99% of what a typical user (I know we all define that differently) will want doesn’t even require AUR access - it will be in the official Arch repositories and will be up to date to within a few weeks of release.
There are some potentially substantial downsides to the AUR (it’s the Arch USER Repository - so these are not official arch packages) but IME the real world problems are minimal. I would suggest anyone who is new to the Arch way of distributing software should hit up the relevant page on the Arch wiki and make up their own mind before using the AUR - but it’s about being aware of what you are doing more than it is a real warning, if that makes sense. I suspect few Arch or Arch-based users don’t have at least a smidgen of AUR packages on their system. (Edit: That page is very thorough. I think it makes installing from the AUR sound much harder than it needs to be. For most people the command is just “yay -S packagename.” There are gui options that handle all packages including AUR, and yay is not the only cli option, either.)
Interestingly, there are some AUR packages that work by pulling down the deb and deconstructing it for installation on your system - AFAIK it can be that, RPM, a true “compile from source” situation, or I’m guessing some AUR packages are deconstructing snaps\flatpaks\appimages during the install. Whatever the origin of the files, they include a pkgbuild file that tells your system how to either compile or deconstruct and install the software.
I know I ran into this years ago. I think it was some collection manager app for a trading card game that someone had on GitHub and only had .deb releases. Eventually you will want to install something niche.
Nah, it’s repeating the installation process until you finally get enough stuff working to have internet, and then you can bootstrap installing every other bit of software that you need. Thank goodness for rolling release - I can’t imagine having to go through that again.
You can install Arch directly from a UEFI shell over the Internet: archlinux.org/releng/netboot/
If your BIOS has a UEFI shell that supports DHCP, HTTP and IPv4 PXE you can load the ipxe-arch.efi over HTTP and start installing.
Depends on the version. All of them (the newer ones with networking) have TFTP. Some even have HTTPS. I think HP Servers even have HTTPS-Boot with client TLS certificates.
None of it works with Wifi though. iPXE has wifi support for some devices but you obviously can’t start it over the Internet. You need to flash a ROM you don’t need or use a USB drive to load it. Then you can boot Linux from the Internet. (That also works if you don’t have a UEFI Shell in BIOS). netboot.xyz can also boot other OSes than Arch.
I haven’t done a vanilla arch install for years either, because if that sort of thing is fun for some folks great, but it was only fun once or twice for me. I think a lot of the vanilla arch faithful end up scripting it for fresh installs.
But, FWIW there’s always endeavouros, manjaro, and I’m sure other Arch derivatives I’ve forgotten about. I just did an endeavouros install on new hardware I was given last weekend, and it’s certainly no harder to install than Ubuntu.
I just switched from Arch to Endeavour to Fedora! My 2 cents:
Arch is like a barebones Lego box without instructions, only a set of pictures. Sure, you get a paper telling you how to ensamble a basic OS, but what to do of it is up to you. For example, you might want a firewall there, right? or maybe a systemd timer to trim your ssd? IDK, you can guess it on your own. The pieces are there, it’s up to you to decide what to use.
Endeavour is like that same Lego box where someone handled you the manual from another themed box. If you installed Arch on your own, and felt like you might’ve missed something, or something feels off, EndeavourOS just gives you the ensambled set for you to play with. The problem? No problem, really. It feels like a greatly configured Arch installation.
Fedora feels like a themed box. You don’t have whole lot of bricks like that other unthemed box (AUR), but damn, everything just works and it works great. Only caveat is that non free stuff (drivers, codecs, etc) require that you input some commands (but really, every linux distro requires this still). So far, my experience is between “wow, I didn’t know you could do/have this! Must’ve missed it in the arch wiki” and “damn, there’s no easy way to install X in Fedora? I miss the AUR :(”
I’m a sysadmin as well and I consider spinning up a new instance and rebuilding a system from scratch to be an essential part of the backup and recovery process.
Upgrades are fine, but they can sometimes be risky and over a long enough period of time your system is likely accumulating many changes that are not documented and it can be difficult to know exactly which settings or customizations are important to running your applications. VM snapshots are great but they aren’t always portable and they don’t solve the problem of accumulating undocumented changes over time.
Instead if you can reinstall an OS, copy data, apply a config and get things working again then you know exactly what configuration is necessary and when something breaks you can more easily get back to a healthy state.
Generally these days I use a preseed file for my Linux installs to partition disks, install essential packages, add users and set ssh keys. Then I use Ansible playbooks to deploy a config and install/start applications. If I ever break something that takes longer than 20 minutes to fix I can just reinstall the whole OS and be back up and running, no problem.
Konsole, but only because I’m on Plasma. I really don’t rven like it that much, but… well, it’s a terminal, it does terminal things so I’m more than OK with it.
On xfce, I would youse xfce-terminal.
anything is fine as long as basic stuff works - like ctrl/shift+insert (tho it’s a thing I had to manually setup in Konsole 😅)
linux
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.