ArchThis Forum is for the discussion of Arch Linux.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
I'm looking to use the latest and greatest with a variety of software. Antergos and Manjaro left me with work to do after I installed, like updates breaking, and bad certificates. OpenSuse tumbleweed was flawless accept it doesn't have as much software available for it as an Arch based distro. So I was thinking of trying straight up Arch, but I don't know many people that use straight up Arch, so I'm looking for someone with experience and an honest response. I'm not looking to put down any distro, it's all GNU/Linux in the end.
I am using Arch Linux to type this! My opinion is that it works excellent and is stable. But... there is a reason I also use Debian. Meaning that; when it comes to Arch, it is EASIER to ”break” stuff. Please note that this is not due to Arch Linux doing the actual breaking - it is YOU (and I) who will do it. Meaning: your role as adminstrator is bigger. Sometimes you actually have to read before you install a package.
But to sum up; I am super pleased with Arch Linux, just as I am super pleased with Debian. I just use them for different purposes.
I use Arch on my home systems. It's stable. There are occasional updates that cause bugs or changes that can mess with an existing system - but the fix for it is usually posted on the front page within a few hours. The biggest problem i remember having was when we went to package signing, but that was a couple years ago.
If you are talking about server software - I would NOT use Arch for that. Use a vetted, trusted, stable, LTS Enterprise supported Linux distro like RedHat/Centos.
Running Arch on a old Lenovo T400, my main custom rig and it's super stable. BUT, as HMW said, it is easyIER to break stuff. Like him I use Debian where I need ultra-stability -> for my servers since it is more difficult to actually break thing by accident and Arch for my workstation. Here I like to tinker around and don't really mind if stuff breaks since it is a opportunity to learn
Like the others, I use both Arch and Debian (testing). If you weren't happy with any work you had to do after installing Antergos you won't be happy with Arch as Antergos is basically just an installer for Arch and you'll wind up with the same system.
Any time you're using the "latest and greatest" there is a chance of something going wrong and you'll have to be prepared to fix it. That said, I've found Arch reasonably stable, with the occasional hickup here and there.
I am using Arch Linux to type this! My opinion is that it works excellent and is stable. But... there is a reason I also use Debian. Meaning that; when it comes to Arch, it is EASIER to ”break” stuff.
I have used Arch for many years and only once did I experience partial breakage, whereas I have never had breakage with Debian. I don't want people to shy away from Arch, at least not in fear of an unstable system.
If you weren't happy with any work you had to do after installing Antergos you won't be happy with Arch as Antergos is basically just an installer for Arch and you'll wind up with the same system.
i don't quite agree with this.
antergos and manjaro are real distros, with their own package- and system management.
there is (used to be?) e.g. archbang, which is an installer; you have a genuine archlinux system after installing it, with no extra software, but you have deprived yourself of the opportunity of getting to know your system while installing it.
imho, the whole point of archlinux is that it puts you in the driver seat; and by using one of the arch-based distros you give up that seat.
the problem there is that arch is designed with the idea that you are in control of and responsible for your system, and imho these distros can only do that much before things start to deviate and evtl. break.
archlinux also has the best wiki ever, hands down and no argument please.
and yes, i've been using archlinux for a couple of years now and i find it to be stable. frequent updates, requires actually reading pacman's output and sometimes taking a look at archlinux.org frontpage.
my server is running debian stable. infrequent updates, older machine, is running for weeks on end without reboot.
Content management software Just Works.
I spent 2014 with a break a month, I spent 2015 and half of 2016 without a break..I wouldn't use Antergos or Manjaro thinking that they are going to add stability.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.