5 ms·

You probably didn't install/enable hardware acceleration in arch as described here: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Hardware_video_acceleration https://wiki.ar

You probably didn't install/enable hardware acceleration in arch as described here: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Hardware_video_acceleration https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Hardware_video_acceleration

wing-_-nuts 4y ago
Yeah, I've been using linux for over 20 years, but I was pretty shocked by the number of sharp edges I encountered with arch. A recent update basically borked grub. On investigating the issue I found that the arch maintainers were shipping grub builds from the grub master branch, and when I pointed out this might not be the best idea the maintainer got huffy and said maybe I wasn't 'ready for arch'. I installed popOS that day. I miss the AUR a bit, but pop resolves most of the issues I had with ubuntu, and starts and runs noticeably faster than arch, so all in all I'm pretty happy with it. It's a shame that arch can be so user hostile. I really admire it's wiki.
- entropicdrifter 4y ago
  Arch is great as a hobby, the problems only come up if you also want to use your computer for other hobbies. I installed arch on my laptop back in 2010 and it was a worthwhile learning experience, but these days I use Mint with the Liquorix kernel and it's fantastic for regular desktop usage and gaming.
- gmadsen 4y ago
  use manjaro. really, you get the benefits of AUR, stable rolling release, without all the headache of arch I haven't had a single update issue so far in the last year
  - kaba0 4y ago
    With the added “benefit” of maintainers copying other’s work without any credit.
  - Tiberium 4y ago
    Obligatory https://manjarno.snorlax.sh/ https://manjarno.snorlax.sh/ For real, advising someone to use Manjaro over Arch is kinda weird.
- pkulak 4y ago
  I recently switched from Arch to Fedora Silverblue. I have my terminal open directly into an Archlinux container created by Distrobox. In there I have all my usual bits and bobs installed from the main Arch repos, plus the aur. Even graphical stuff, like Sublime Music, which I export to the host. But you don't need to be running Silverblue. You should give it a shot on PopOS; it really makes you feel at home coming from Arch.
  - nerpderp82 4y ago
    https://github.com/89luca89/distrobox https://github.com/89luca89/distrobox If done right this could be a baby step towards Qubes, https://www.qubes-os.org/ https://www.qubes-os.org/
    - pkulak 4y ago
      haha, yeah, I did try out qubes, but I'm not really in it for the security, just the flexibility.
- rolisz 4y ago
  So I'm not the only one bitten by the Grub issue. I haven't had time to properly look into it so far, and I don't use my ArchLinux machine too often, so I guess it will wait quite a while.
  - d_tr 4y ago
    I switched to systemd-boot because I could not boot even after wiping all grub files, reinstalling and running grub-mkconfig. Worked fine in minutes with all my kernel entries and Windows. Before that I tried rEFInd, wrote a small lean config file and while I could boot, I had some UI issues. Seemed buggy but it might have been my fault.
    - throwaway_au_1 4y ago
      Want to say I've had good luck with rEFInd in my simple use cases, and the author Rod Smith is very active and helpful on the Stack Exchanges, if one runs into issues. His website is also one of the "last few" simple, content-oriented sites around. Thanks Rod.
- LordDragonfang 4y ago
  Do you mind listing what issues you have with Ubuntu compared to Arch (and which ones popOS fixes?)? As someone who's only ever used Debian-based distros, I've always wondered what problems Arch actually solves for people.
  - rraghur 4y ago
    Not gp but was in the same boat... Only ever used Debian based distros... 1. No upgrade path between lts... You're on your own 2. On 20.04, no working Wayland, Bluetooth issues even with pw, 3. In general, PPAs don't come close to aur in terms of availability of sw I was going to switch to arch, but after the grub issue noted in other comments here, went with manjaro since this is also my work machine Manjaro has its own, different set of issues, but I've yet to hit any of them
  - wing-_-nuts 4y ago
    The main thing I disliked about ubuntu was the lack of availability of recent software, and the packaging of software in snaps. Used to be, deb packages was the 'lingua franca' of the internet. Everyone offered deb files, often provided by PPAs. These days you're much more likely to find a package in pacman / aur as ubuntu has gotten a little less popular amongst the folks who like playing with the bleeding edge. Arch has pacman, which I found about as good as the ubuntu repos, but it also has AUR, which has damned near everything. Unfortunately, arch is also almost willfully hard to use. They only recently got an 'installer' and it's a shell script that's worse than the slackware installer I first used back in '99. There isn't very good tooling to tweak settings for anything, you're referred to the arch wiki, that, while good, could really use a technical writer. Finally, I strongly get the sense that it's a 'toy' distro meant for exploring than a production distro meant for prod use. Granted, this is mainly from my experience where updates failed spectacularly (twice!), and the devs responsible basically shrugged and blamed upstream, when they were making grub builds straight from master for their 'stable' repos. Their 'fix' took a whole week, and was basically adding some patch notes advising people to run a command before rebooting. Pop OS is basically the latest ubuntu LTS with a few tweaks to gnome, a scheduler which gives higher priority to foreground tasks, and installs most major packages from deb repos instead of snaps (though flatpacks are still available. If not for pop i would have simply went with linux mint.

wing-_-nuts 4y ago

Yeah, I've been using linux for over 20 years, but I was pretty shocked by the number of sharp edges I encountered with arch. A recent update basically borked grub. On investigating the issue I found that the arch maintainers were shipping grub builds from the grub master branch, and when I pointed out this might not be the best idea the maintainer got huffy and said maybe I wasn't 'ready for arch'. I installed popOS that day. I miss the AUR a bit, but pop resolves most of the issues I had with ubuntu, and starts and runs noticeably faster than arch, so all in all I'm pretty happy with it. It's a shame that arch can be so user hostile. I really admire it's wiki.

entropicdrifter 4y ago
Arch is great as a hobby, the problems only come up if you also want to use your computer for other hobbies. I installed arch on my laptop back in 2010 and it was a worthwhile learning experience, but these days I use Mint with the Liquorix kernel and it's fantastic for regular desktop usage and gaming.
gmadsen 4y ago
use manjaro. really, you get the benefits of AUR, stable rolling release, without all the headache of arch I haven't had a single update issue so far in the last year
- kaba0 4y ago
  With the added “benefit” of maintainers copying other’s work without any credit.
- Tiberium 4y ago
  Obligatory https://manjarno.snorlax.sh/ https://manjarno.snorlax.sh/ For real, advising someone to use Manjaro over Arch is kinda weird.
pkulak 4y ago
I recently switched from Arch to Fedora Silverblue. I have my terminal open directly into an Archlinux container created by Distrobox. In there I have all my usual bits and bobs installed from the main Arch repos, plus the aur. Even graphical stuff, like Sublime Music, which I export to the host. But you don't need to be running Silverblue. You should give it a shot on PopOS; it really makes you feel at home coming from Arch.
- nerpderp82 4y ago
  https://github.com/89luca89/distrobox https://github.com/89luca89/distrobox If done right this could be a baby step towards Qubes, https://www.qubes-os.org/ https://www.qubes-os.org/
  - pkulak 4y ago
    haha, yeah, I did try out qubes, but I'm not really in it for the security, just the flexibility.
rolisz 4y ago
So I'm not the only one bitten by the Grub issue. I haven't had time to properly look into it so far, and I don't use my ArchLinux machine too often, so I guess it will wait quite a while.
- d_tr 4y ago
  I switched to systemd-boot because I could not boot even after wiping all grub files, reinstalling and running grub-mkconfig. Worked fine in minutes with all my kernel entries and Windows. Before that I tried rEFInd, wrote a small lean config file and while I could boot, I had some UI issues. Seemed buggy but it might have been my fault.
  - throwaway_au_1 4y ago
    Want to say I've had good luck with rEFInd in my simple use cases, and the author Rod Smith is very active and helpful on the Stack Exchanges, if one runs into issues. His website is also one of the "last few" simple, content-oriented sites around. Thanks Rod.
LordDragonfang 4y ago
Do you mind listing what issues you have with Ubuntu compared to Arch (and which ones popOS fixes?)? As someone who's only ever used Debian-based distros, I've always wondered what problems Arch actually solves for people.
- rraghur 4y ago
  Not gp but was in the same boat... Only ever used Debian based distros... 1. No upgrade path between lts... You're on your own 2. On 20.04, no working Wayland, Bluetooth issues even with pw, 3. In general, PPAs don't come close to aur in terms of availability of sw I was going to switch to arch, but after the grub issue noted in other comments here, went with manjaro since this is also my work machine Manjaro has its own, different set of issues, but I've yet to hit any of them
- wing-_-nuts 4y ago
  The main thing I disliked about ubuntu was the lack of availability of recent software, and the packaging of software in snaps. Used to be, deb packages was the 'lingua franca' of the internet. Everyone offered deb files, often provided by PPAs. These days you're much more likely to find a package in pacman / aur as ubuntu has gotten a little less popular amongst the folks who like playing with the bleeding edge. Arch has pacman, which I found about as good as the ubuntu repos, but it also has AUR, which has damned near everything. Unfortunately, arch is also almost willfully hard to use. They only recently got an 'installer' and it's a shell script that's worse than the slackware installer I first used back in '99. There isn't very good tooling to tweak settings for anything, you're referred to the arch wiki, that, while good, could really use a technical writer. Finally, I strongly get the sense that it's a 'toy' distro meant for exploring than a production distro meant for prod use. Granted, this is mainly from my experience where updates failed spectacularly (twice!), and the devs responsible basically shrugged and blamed upstream, when they were making grub builds straight from master for their 'stable' repos. Their 'fix' took a whole week, and was basically adding some patch notes advising people to run a command before rebooting. Pop OS is basically the latest ubuntu LTS with a few tweaks to gnome, a scheduler which gives higher priority to foreground tasks, and installs most major packages from deb repos instead of snaps (though flatpacks are still available. If not for pop i would have simply went with linux mint.