I've been using Linux as my main OS for a couple of years now, first on a slightly older Dell Inspiron 15. Last year I upgraded to an Inspiron 15 7510 with i7-11800H and RTX3050. Since purchasing this laptop I've used Manjaro, Debian 11, Pop OS, Void Linux, Fedora Silverblue (37 & 38) and now Debian 12. I need to reinstall soon since I've stuffed up my NVIDIA drivers trying to install CUDA and didn't realise that they changed the default swap size to 1GB.
I use this laptop for everything - development in C/C++, dart/flutter, nodejs and sometimes PHP. I occasionally play games on it through Proton and sometimes need to re-encode videos using Handbrake. I need some amount of reliability since I also use this for University.
I've previously been against trying Arch due to instability issues such as the recent GRUB thing. But I have been reading about BTRFS and snapshots which make me think I can have an up to date system and reliability (by rebooting into a snapshot). What's everyone's perspective on this, is there anything major I should keep an eye on?
Should also note I use GNOME, vscode, Firefox and will need MATLAB to be installed, if there is anything to do with those that is problematic on Arch?
Edit: I went with Arch thanks everyone for the advice
Last year I upgraded to an Inspiron 15 7510 with i7-11800H and RTX3050. Since purchasing this laptop I’ve used Manjaro, Debian 11, Pop OS, Void Linux, Fedora Silverblue (37 & 38) and now Debian 12.
A distro-hopper. *Noted*.
I need to reinstall soon since I’ve stuffed up my NVIDIA drivers trying to install CUDA and didn’t realise that they changed the default swap size to 1GB.
Prefers starting from scratch instead of fixing. *Noted*.
I use this laptop for everything - development in C/C++, dart/flutter, nodejs and sometimes PHP. I occasionally play games on it through Proton and sometimes need to re-encode videos using Handbrake. I need some amount of reliability since I also use this for University.
General-use and reliable. *Noted*.
I’ve previously been against trying Arch due to instability issues such as the recent GRUB thing.
Understandable, but not entirely justified.
But I have been reading about BTRFS and snapshots which make me think I can have an up to date system and reliability (by rebooting into a snapshot).
Fair.
What’s everyone’s perspective on this, is there anything major I should keep an eye on?
It is almost common knowledge at this point that this approach has serious merits. That's why we find it on a myriad of rolling release distros. From Manjaro to Garuda, from SpiralLinux to Siduction. Heck, even Nobara -which is not strictly a rolling release distro- has it. I wouldn't even use/recommend a rolling release distro if not for (GRUB-)Btrfs+Timeshift/Snapper. But, while by itself it is already very powerful. It still benefits a lot from testing. Which, when utilized by openSUSE in particular, manages to elevate their Tumbleweed to a very high standard. So much so, that it has rightfully earned to be named the stable rolling release distro. But not all distros are as rigorous in their testing... if at all...
Should also note I use GNOME, vscode, Firefox and will need MATLAB to be installed, if there is anything to do with those that is problematic on Arch?
Nah, that's absolutely fine. *Noted*.
Should I give Arch a shot?
So there are some glaring issues here:
- You've set some parameters and asked us if Arch satisfies. Which it does, but so do a lot of other distros. Which seems to tell me that this will become yet another chapter of your distro-hopper-phase. Which -to be clear- happens to be totally fine. I'd even argue that it's preferable to do it sooner rather than later. Though the mindset of a distro-hopper might deter you from being satiated...
- As previously alluded, Arch is yet another distro that satisfies your needs. You didn't mention what attracted you towards it, nor why you'd prefer it specifically over all the other available options.
- Btrfs snapshots, while powerful, are not 100% fail-safe. Sure, nothing actually is as a random SSD crash might loom around the corner. And I'd be one of the first to tell you that using Btrfs snapshots to rollback to is an exponentially better experience than without. But we're still able to improve upon it (mathematically speaking) infinitely times, to be more precise; some systems allow us to decrease the complexity from uncountably infinite amount of states (which therefore become "unknown states") to countably infinite or (better yet) finite amount of states (which therefore actually become "known states"). The reduction of complexity that this offers and its implications to system reliability are far more impactful than the simple use of Btrfs snapshots.
Consider answering the following questions:
- Are you a distro-hopper? Or did you have very legit reasons to switch distros? If so, would you mind telling us why you changed distros?
- Would it be fair to assume that it boils down to "I messed up, but instead of repairing I will opt for reinstalling."
- If so, is this something you want to work on (eventually) or doesn't it bother you at all?
- Would it be fair to assume that it boils down to "I messed up, but instead of repairing I will opt for reinstalling."
- Why Arch?
- Would you like to setup Btrfs yourself? Or would you prefer your distro to do it for you? Or don't you actually mind regardless?
OP was relatively verbose so I act accordingly. Don't feel compelled to read larger pieces if you're sensitive to wasting your time. I don't recall forcing you to read it, so it's entirely on you. While information density might have suffered, "little info" is too harsh. Though, as long as there's even one sentence of 'original' information (compared to all the other comments) a piece of writing of that length is worth reading IMO. Though, thinking otherwise is definitely justifiable.
Though, as long as there’s even one sentence of ‘original’ information [...] a piece of writing of that length is worth reading IMO
No. You are just confirming it.
Did it? That's not how I remember book reports.
And this does have useful information.
I might be a distro hopper. Every distro just removedles me after a while, Silverblue wasn't flexible enough, didn't like GNOME 3.38 on Debian 11 after using 4x on Manjaro. Manjaro was buggy and had poor reputation. I didn't like Pop Shell, however, there was good support for Optimus laptops on Pop OS. Before Debian 12 I gave Ubuntu another go and it kept crashing. Main problem with Debian 12 is Firefox ESR which doesn't work with some sites I need and that the packages will be significantly out of date within a year.
I thought Arch because it is almost always up to date and seems to be widely recommended.
It's not like I haven't tried fixing the issue, I just don't know what to do outside of uninstalling and reinstalling the drivers or waiting for NVIDIA to provide a repo for Debian 12 for CUDA. As for the swap I would rather have a partition for it than have some combination of swapfiles and swap.
I had a go at installing Arch today in a VM using archinstall and set up BTRFS with Timeshift and grub-btrfs and it all seemed fairly straightforward.
Thanks for answering! Much appreciated!
I might be a distro hopper. Every distro just removedles me after a while
Perhaps you've yet to find the one 😜. Your criticism to the different distros is fair though.
I thought Arch because it is almost always up to date and seems to be widely recommended.
Yup, it's by far the most popular rolling release distro. Though, I'd argue that openSUSE Tumleweed -while not as popular- is definitely worth checking out as well. They're, however, quite different from one another. Arch offers a blank canvas, while openSUSE Tumbleweed is relatively opinionated; though it does offer excellent defaults. You would have to make up your own mind whichever 'style' of maintaining a distro suits you best.
I had a go at installing Arch today in a VM using archinstall and set up BTRFS with Timeshift and grub-btrfs and it all seemed fairly straightforward.
Well, that sure does sound promising!
Thanks for taking the time to read my comments, really appreciate it! I've had a bit of a look into Tumbleweed and it sounds like it's similar to Fedora in how it handles packaging of proprietary software which I found pretty annoying, but I could be wrong.
I’ve had a bit of a look into Tumbleweed and it sounds like it’s similar to Fedora in how it handles packaging of proprietary software which I found pretty annoying, but I could be wrong.
It's true that Arch is leaner towards proprietary software if that's what you mean. An example of this is how the Nvidia drivers are just found within repos for Arch (thus enabled by default), while on both Fedora and openSUSE it's not found in the official repos. Both have made it easier over the years to somehow include options and whatnot within the installer to ease Nvidia users in, but the experience on Arch is definitely smoother.
Furthermore, Fedora is indeed (kinda) hardcore on FOSS, similarly to Debian. While Arch simply doesn't care in most cases. My relatively short endeavor to find out where openSUSE fits in seems to point towards openSUSE leaning closer to Debian and Fedora.
What's perhaps important to note is that in all cases there are third party repos that can easily be enabled to acquire proprietary software.
For someone seemingly so eager to try out new distros, I'm surprised you haven't mentioned virtual machines. If the vibes are off, it's a whole lot less disruptive to find out that way.
Your experience with drivers won't be quite the same as a bare-metal installation, but checking out software shouldn't be a problem.
Definitely. VMs are great for trialing distro and DE. They may not be great for demanding tasks like gaming without a fair amount of tinkering it should get you to the point where you can figure out if something is for you.
That said stability is a bit more complicated and I think a lot of that comes down to personal experience and long term community thoughts. Both are why I don't use Manjaro anymore and the personal aspect is why I still love Fedora
Based just on this, I'd suggest looking into OpenSuse Tumbleweed. It's got the reliability you need for your university work, all the software you need, and is about as close to bleeding edge as you can get without cutting yourself.
If, however, you're also looking to gain a deeper understanding of how your system works, and don't mind (or enjoy) troubleshooting problems yourself when they crop up, Arch is excellent.
I can't think of much. I have been using EndeavorOS as my daily driver for about three years now and haven't had much in the way of instability.
So, the big thing with instability is that with Linux "Unstable" refers to "Constantly receiving updates" rather than "Breaks all the time"
In my experience, if arch breaks, 99% of the time YOU the user did it.
If you want a kinkless experience with it, keep it simple.
Arch ships with systemd, as such, it also ships with systemd-boot. Use what's built, don't add additional bootloaders unless you need the functionality they offer.
Gnome, Matlab, and VScode have wiki pages for installation and configuration, and Firefox is in the repos and is one line in the terminal to install (#pacman -S firefox)
For a first install, I'd recommend following the wiki to install instead of using archinstall to familiarize yourself with how to use and read the wiki.
Two things that arch does really really well:
News feed
Wiki
The best documentation I've ever used
I'd recommend openSUSE Tumbleweed instead. They originated the btrfs setup that lets you rollback in the grub menu, which has been copied by others. They are bleeding edge except that all packages go through an automated testing system before being rolled out so there's much less breakage to start with.
How well does openSUSE Tumbleweed handle proprietary stuff like NVIDIA drivers?
There is definitely a caveat with nvidia. The nvidia repo is managed external to the main repos, so it is possible for a new kernel to drop in the system repo and the nvidia repo not yet be updated with a compatible driver.
I always wait a few days on such updates and watch the mailing lists for problems especially from nvidia users. So far I've only experienced problems due to prime wonkiness that required re-running a couple of prime commands. I haven't had to use the boot-from-btrfs-snapshot yet, but it's a nice security blanket.
From what I've seen it's far from bleeding edge. A few months ago I compared it to other rolling release distros and it was by far the most out of date.
There's always a chance I messed up, but afaik it was tumbleweed. Although I was looking for some programming and niche packages, not something popular like Firefox.
If you want to learn arch linux for the sake of learning about how to manually configure Linux yourself why not. However if you have done a minimal install of void linux (without xfce and bundled) you are not going to learn much.
Arch Linux can be great if you really want to customize your setup and have fun doing so. Arch can be great if you enjoy having a unique looking environment with an extensive wiki to help you doing so. However it is not the "best" unlike arch fans would say, pacman can have issues updating your system using the AUR and not being careful can sometimes lead you to annihilating your own OS at times (though I have heard that recent updates try to fix that). Besides the full customization it doesn't have much for it.
Gentoo is epitome of customization where you compile your OS and chose specific versions (even binaries) of what you want. Void Linux is really fast with the xbps package manager being nearly as fast as pacman and its unique init system which makes it book under 5 seconds using a SSD NVMe. Fedora, Debian and Pop OS are the most used because of how simple and stable they are, and having the largest amount of support from non FOSS developers.
So f you want to have fun customizing your stuff without having to compile everything: sure why not. Otherwise just try something else.
As a fellow developer who recently moved to Arch, it's great, the installation process was a tiny bit frustrating (I did test it first in a VM) but after that it works as intended, I keep my eyes on the wiki though if any issues happen, nvidia driver works well with PRIME too, although I don't use it much (I dualboot for the sake of gaming), if you feel like you need to have even MORE control over your PC than your vanilla Debian or Fedora experiences, I guess Arch is the next step, on a side note, minimal Void Linux installation is very similar to what you get with Arch so in case you used that you already have a taste of what you're getting into, well, plus having access to the AUR :)
Oh also, I'm not sure about MATLAB, but Octave has been shipped as MATLAB compatible (although it haven't been the case for me with some functionalities...) Maybe you'll need a Windows VM if Octave wasn't enough, or maybe it runs using WINE I haven't bothered trying it
In regards to your original quesiton, I would like to know why you stopped using Void linux. Because to me its very similar to Arch in many ways.
I left it for Fedora Silverblue because I was interested in the immutable distro concept. Otherwise my main problems with it was the use of runit over systems, the small community when something went wrong and the lack of mainstream support. Otherwise it was a pretty good experience
IMHO arch is way too overrated. It does include a lot of stuff in the repos that others don't have, but the benefit end there in my opinion. My experience on fedora has been way better.
I love arch and I'm incredibly biased, but here goes. I have used Arch exclusively for the past n years. All of the things you've mentioned will work great. The AUR absolutely rules. It's rather similiar to Void in the sense that it's a completely blank slate, so it's going to be as unique an experience as you make it.
Arch is really stable and reliable as long as you don't break it, really. Out of the handful of times I've fucked up my install, all of them have been my own fault. Fortunately Arch is (relatively) easy to fix: keep a live USB on hand and chroot into your physical drive with
arch-chroot
and unfuck whatever needs unfucking. I haven't ever had to completely start over from scratch a single time. It's a learning experience!Go for it, I say. Try it in a VM beforehand if you gotta.
Thanks everyone for your advice, I decided to install Arch, I've got it all set up with BTRFS and snapper with automatic snapshots through
snap-pac
.The only problems in the install were that the default BTRFS subvolume layout given by archinstall gives an @.snapshots subvolume. If you want to use snapper with the root subvolume you need to unmount and remove this subvolume so that snapper can create a new one.
The other problem was that once the proprietary NVIDIA driver is installed gdm will force X11 still on Hybrid graphics laptops. Just had to symlink the gdm config to null which is mentioned in the wiki for drivers older than 470 on single GPU set-ups. Sorry don't have the links on me.
Otherwise all set up now, we'll see how this goes
one thing ill say. flutter via aur is kinda a pain, I would reccomend installing the flutter package, not flutter-git, then adding it to ignore-pkg in /etc/pacman.conf then letting flutter handle updates
Interesting, at the moment I'm using the snap package since that's what's officially supported, so I should probably stick to that (for simplicity)
I myself detest snap, avoiding them whenever possible, the manual install method is also officially supported which is more or less what the aur does