4 ms·

After using Ubuntu for over a decade, I switched to Arch Linux. If you exclude the duplicated architecture packages in the Ubuntu repos and include the communi

After using Ubuntu for over a decade, I switched to Arch Linux. If you exclude the duplicated architecture packages in the Ubuntu repos and include the community-maintained packages, Arch has more packages new packages seem to commonly available within 24 hours of an upstream release. For example, I use some utilities based on "rofi". A search for Ubuntu packages containing "rofi-" contains just no results, but a search for Arch packages returns about 50 results. https://packages.ubuntu.com/search?suite=groovy&section=all&arch=any&keywords=rofi-&searchon=names https://packages.ubuntu.com/search?suite=groovy&section=all&... https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?O=0&SeB=n&K=rofi-&outdated=&SB=n&SO=a&PP=50&do_Search=Go https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?O=0&SeB=n&K=rofi-&outdat... AUR packages look easier to maintain than PPAs, so I'm more likely to get get involved with packaging something on Arch then I was on Ubuntu.

Quekid5 6y ago
> After using Ubuntu for over a decade, I switched to Arch Linux. Hah! Very similar experience; see my sibling reply :)
metafunctor 6y ago
Yes. However, Arch Linux means you need to spend time, probably several times per year, to fix stuff that worked yesterday but doesn't work anymore. Arch Linux is just an entirely different thing compared to Ubuntu. I'd like someone who isn't me to make sure stuff works. Only very rarely will I be bothered to do actual work to upgrade to a new breaking version on my daily driver. Randomly breaking my shit on a Tuesday will make me install something more stable. On the rare occasion that I'd like to try something unstable, I can usually find a PPA or something. I don't like edges that make me bleed on my base OS.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- bombcar 6y ago
  There’s a continuum between something like Arch or Gentoo and CentOS on the other side - the amount of “pain” is roughly similar but when you encounter it changes - it’s usually easy to figure out WHAT broke on Gentoo as it was probably the last thing you installed - whereas a move from CentOS six to seven can be a huge undertaking (even more of you jump straight to 8). But there definitely is something nice about general stability (until you have to install something on an old OS that requires a new package and you enter a whole new hell).
- mixedCase 6y ago
  > Yes. However, Arch Linux means you need to spend time, probably several times per year, to fix stuff that worked yesterday but doesn't work anymore. Largely a myth and config-dependent. I used to have this issue 10 years ago but now most of my troubles are self-inflicted. Things are as stable as they come when using software from the official repos.
  - piyh 6y ago
    I feel like a fairly competent Linux user and within 2 months had my Arch install broken to a point where I didn't want to invest the time to go down that "why is right click broken along with all these dependencies" rabbit hole. I went back to my mint/debian/Ubuntu safe space.
    - loudmax 6y ago
      I installed Arch Linux on a ThinkPad in 2011 and it's literally running the same OS today, nearly 10 years later. I won't say I've never had anything break, but never anything major like audio or video or wifi. In my experience, Arch is one of the most stable OS's I've seen. But I suspect a lot of it has to do with what you're doing with it. First, ThinkPads are generally well supported in Linux. Also, I've never seen any reason to use GNOME as a desktop. I used to run XFCE on Compiz, then i3 as Compiz stopped being updated. More recently, I've switched to sway, and I've finally started using PulseAudio because it's required for Zoom. Obviously, i3 and sway aren't for everyone. YMMV.
      - gautamcgoel 6y ago
        I've been thinking about leaving Fedora and your comment intrigues me. Does Zoom work well with i3? Can you share your screen? Regarding PulseAudio, I didn't realize Linux users had a choice about whether to use it - is there an alternate audio subsystem available?
        namibj 6y ago
        Alsa and JACK are major forces aside from PulseAudio.
- icedchai 6y ago
  Upgrading Arch Linux can be a mess... But Ubuntu is no picnic, either. I've seen plenty of glitches during Ubuntu 20.04 "LTS" upgrades. The most recent is it dropping the network in the middle of the 20.04.2 upgrade. Before that, it lost the default route (there was a bug with multiple interfaces.) There have been others.
  - farisjarrah 6y ago
    If we're going anecdotal, Ubuntu has been nothing but great for me. I have left laptops off for months and then turned them on and update/upgrade them no problem, as well as computers that I use daily. I think the crux of the update issue is really how well package managers handle interdependencies between packages vs how many/what packages you have on your system.
    - icedchai 6y ago
      These are servers with multiple Ethernet and bridge interfaces, primarily used for VM hosting. This requires no third party packages and is not anything non-standard or terribly exotic. I often wonder if Ubuntu tests configurations with anything beyond a single NIC.
      - jkaplowitz 6y ago
        Debian is more reliable than Ubuntu about upgrades between and within major versions and in configurations that aren't the most typical. Still consult the release notes before upgrading between major versions in case there are relevant release-specific gotchas before/after/during, and for generally helpful precautionary advice, but quite often there aren't.
m463 6y ago
I think arch is better for desktop sorts of things. remember: - desktop users want the latest thing, immediately. - server users want nothing to change, ever.
- karlmdavis 6y ago
  As a desktop user, not so much, no. I want things to work. I don’t want to spend my time arguing with my tools, just for the sake of having the latest and greatest. I might go through and upgrade everything every couple of years, at most. Beyond that, I just want security upgrades to happen without me having to think about them.

Quekid5 6y ago

> After using Ubuntu for over a decade, I switched to Arch Linux. Hah! Very similar experience; see my sibling reply :)

metafunctor 6y ago

Yes. However, Arch Linux means you need to spend time, probably several times per year, to fix stuff that worked yesterday but doesn't work anymore. Arch Linux is just an entirely different thing compared to Ubuntu. I'd like someone who isn't me to make sure stuff works. Only very rarely will I be bothered to do actual work to upgrade to a new breaking version on my daily driver. Randomly breaking my shit on a Tuesday will make me install something more stable. On the rare occasion that I'd like to try something unstable, I can usually find a PPA or something. I don't like edges that make me bleed on my base OS.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bombcar 6y ago
There’s a continuum between something like Arch or Gentoo and CentOS on the other side - the amount of “pain” is roughly similar but when you encounter it changes - it’s usually easy to figure out WHAT broke on Gentoo as it was probably the last thing you installed - whereas a move from CentOS six to seven can be a huge undertaking (even more of you jump straight to 8). But there definitely is something nice about general stability (until you have to install something on an old OS that requires a new package and you enter a whole new hell).
mixedCase 6y ago
> Yes. However, Arch Linux means you need to spend time, probably several times per year, to fix stuff that worked yesterday but doesn't work anymore. Largely a myth and config-dependent. I used to have this issue 10 years ago but now most of my troubles are self-inflicted. Things are as stable as they come when using software from the official repos.
- piyh 6y ago
  I feel like a fairly competent Linux user and within 2 months had my Arch install broken to a point where I didn't want to invest the time to go down that "why is right click broken along with all these dependencies" rabbit hole. I went back to my mint/debian/Ubuntu safe space.
  - loudmax 6y ago
    I installed Arch Linux on a ThinkPad in 2011 and it's literally running the same OS today, nearly 10 years later. I won't say I've never had anything break, but never anything major like audio or video or wifi. In my experience, Arch is one of the most stable OS's I've seen. But I suspect a lot of it has to do with what you're doing with it. First, ThinkPads are generally well supported in Linux. Also, I've never seen any reason to use GNOME as a desktop. I used to run XFCE on Compiz, then i3 as Compiz stopped being updated. More recently, I've switched to sway, and I've finally started using PulseAudio because it's required for Zoom. Obviously, i3 and sway aren't for everyone. YMMV.
    - gautamcgoel 6y ago
      I've been thinking about leaving Fedora and your comment intrigues me. Does Zoom work well with i3? Can you share your screen? Regarding PulseAudio, I didn't realize Linux users had a choice about whether to use it - is there an alternate audio subsystem available?
      - namibj 6y ago
        Alsa and JACK are major forces aside from PulseAudio.
icedchai 6y ago
Upgrading Arch Linux can be a mess... But Ubuntu is no picnic, either. I've seen plenty of glitches during Ubuntu 20.04 "LTS" upgrades. The most recent is it dropping the network in the middle of the 20.04.2 upgrade. Before that, it lost the default route (there was a bug with multiple interfaces.) There have been others.
- farisjarrah 6y ago
  If we're going anecdotal, Ubuntu has been nothing but great for me. I have left laptops off for months and then turned them on and update/upgrade them no problem, as well as computers that I use daily. I think the crux of the update issue is really how well package managers handle interdependencies between packages vs how many/what packages you have on your system.
  - icedchai 6y ago
    These are servers with multiple Ethernet and bridge interfaces, primarily used for VM hosting. This requires no third party packages and is not anything non-standard or terribly exotic. I often wonder if Ubuntu tests configurations with anything beyond a single NIC.
    - jkaplowitz 6y ago
      Debian is more reliable than Ubuntu about upgrades between and within major versions and in configurations that aren't the most typical. Still consult the release notes before upgrading between major versions in case there are relevant release-specific gotchas before/after/during, and for generally helpful precautionary advice, but quite often there aren't.

m463 6y ago

I think arch is better for desktop sorts of things. remember: - desktop users want the latest thing, immediately. - server users want nothing to change, ever.

karlmdavis 6y ago
As a desktop user, not so much, no. I want things to work. I don’t want to spend my time arguing with my tools, just for the sake of having the latest and greatest. I might go through and upgrade everything every couple of years, at most. Beyond that, I just want security upgrades to happen without me having to think about them.