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”.
Then Arch is not for you. The distro requires you to always be informed of the latest news regarding Arch before upgrading so you’ll probably have to admin your system.
If you’re not ready to do that then you should probably stay with Fedora.
My suggestion: run arch in a virtual machine and get familiar with it before installing it.
I’m sorry but that is not true. Been using arch for 15+ years and update once a week without checking the “latest news”. In all those years I’ve had to manually intervene because of a file conflict maybe 5 times or so.
Of course arch runs but you have to take care of everything. You have to install flatpak etc. Yourself. You will only do that if you keep up to date with the system. On fedora, especially fedora atomic the maintainers take care of it and somewhat teach you. There’s much more than just flatpak. You have to know the system or being eager to research everything. It’s good to understand linux but not if you just want to own a computer and use a text editor and browser. I’m not op btw.
I don’t use flatpak so no idea about that.
But I use my system professionally so it just needs to work and I can’t be spending time fixing things. Luckily there is no need for that at all.
Not saying arch is the most noob friendly distro out there but I wholeheartedly disagree with people saying you need to spend lots of time fixing things or keeping your system stable as that is simply not true.
All good. Arch is just not for someone who doesn’t care about the computer at all and who doesn’t want to know what a firewall is. And it doesn’t matter which distro you use, you should always use the arch wiki. That’s the holy grail.
OP said he didn’t want to waste his time. Arch is not like Ubuntu. It requires you to RTFM (and Arch documentation is excellent) and know what you are doing and be willing to learn from your mistakes. That takes time and dedication. I went with what OP said.
I’m the OP! Just have read it and its replies. So I can write a general reply to these messages. I mean if Arch has problem with its stability, its developer team and etc. as the waste of time. Like, if there is some problems chronically with Arch, I don’t want to mess with it. But if there is nothing wrong about Arch, don’t take my “waste of time” quote important. I’m ready for learning new things and deal with problems like I said. I can say I have got somethings wrong because of the ignorant people. I understood that Arch is stable and non-troublemaking thanks to you guys. Thanks to you all. Have a nice day.
Try Arco. I always wonder how Endeavour always seems to get mentioned before it. The online install option let’s you pick everything you want during installation, and the offline install is fine as well. The online install has options for Wayland/Hyprland as long as it’s on bare metal. I distrohop in Virtualbox and that would be my pick. If the hardware is old, Mabox is great.