Linux

Nothing beats the Arch wiki, to be honest. One of the best and broadest collections of useful information around the web. And since Arch is not-too-modified in relation to upstream, all of the information is usable for ~~most~~ a lot of other distributions, too.

And yes: I’m using Arch, btw.

To be more specific: I’m running Arch with Hyprland (a tiling compositor for Wayland) on my DELL XPS 13 without any issues, running Arch with Openbox (X11) on my main computer since over a decade without any major issues (device is used for gaming, multimedia, video and image editing and screen recording), and on all devices I serve something from.

Since I run Arch as a server (had it as communication server, as DHCP/DNS server, as VPN endpoint on a Raspberry Pi, and as a gaming server, currently on my main server it’s used as host for a Docker setup), I can tell you, you don’t need to worry about any real issues regarding stability and performance. Arch is way less bleeding edge as non-Arch users think. Just update regularly every 2-3 weeks at least, and check the news before doing so.

I’m curious to hear about your experiences and recommendations!

It boils down to what effort you want to put into it.

If university and work usage is mainly running productivity stuff like some type of text processing or using web-based applications you likely won’t ever have any issues. If you’re constantly switching environments, need to run specific apps (maybe even 32-bit software), constantly use different video outputs, tons of different BT devices, etc. … well … Arch is of course capable of everything the bigger distributions have to offer by default (all the nice “magic” stuff that happens automatically in the background), you just need to set everything up by yourself.

I might be biased towards Arch, but maybe just try if it fits your intended purpose and if you’re willing to set up everything at least once before using it.

My vote would be Fedora, too. I've been hopping between distros for 16 years now. Funnily enough, I switched from Arch to Fedora.
And it just works, no broken dependencies or breaking a sweat when you forgot to update for two weeks.

If you can get used to the concept of an immutable file system (as discussed by @Guenther_Amanita) + flatpaks, it is really a smooth system without hassle. You should upgrade to the next version every 6 months - worked flawlessly for me the last two times (you should do backups before obviously).

Lack of AUR could be a thing - how much do you use it? I would say, that is the only weak point for Fedora regarding your requirements.

For me, it's the perfect balance between recent packages , stability, and user experience.

Please let us know what you decided and why - I am curious to hear about your reasons!

Arch and endeavor are the same aside from endeavors simplified installation and some apps. Both let you utilize AUR.

Fedora is good. I used it when I used to use gnome (I could use one more use of the word use). Switched to endeavor when I started using KDE.

I like having AUR. I haven't had any update issues.

I'm sticking with endeavor for now. Fedora might be more ready out of the box though if you need regular use apps.

Use.

Fedora is indeed a pretty solid option its very stable and you are still up to date when it comes to packages.

One distro that I personally use and I'm going to shill is void. Its bleeding edge but its surprisingly stable. If you don't mind reading documentation and researching similarly to arch you shouldn't have a problem (since you are accustomed to endeavourOS).

Just install one. Find out.

I recently distro-hoped to Fedora Silverblue and I am quite pleased with it. This version has in immutable filesystem, thus you might want to look for another version of Fedora.

NixOS is big no go for me too, especially given that you can install the Nix package manager on any distro easily.

Arch Wiki is great and I often use it for non Arch distros well.

Use openSUSE Tumbleweed. It's a rolling release distribution with ~~the best~~ a great KDE Plasma implementation.

Now, your specific question boils down to choosing between Arch and Fedora, since, arguably, Endeavour OS is actually Arch Linux. Now, as you're willing to use a Qt-based DE, specifically Plasma, I'd say none of your options are ideal. That's why I mentioned openSUSE Tumbleweed, but, for you, I'd say Arch Linux, however, you currently use Arch Linux, hence, you should just switch to the Plasma DE.

Does EndeavorOS have automatic BTRFS snapshots? If not, I have no idea how to set those up so I would always use Fedora or Opensuse.

For stability I use Fedora kinoite from ublue.it

But the moment I need to run weird university stuff that comes in an install script, immutable is not great. On the other hand, mess like that should be isolated in a Distrobox anyways, which comes preinstalled in ublues fedora versions

PopOS beats all if its an Nvidia laptop. I'd use arch for anything else.

I just switched from Arch to Endeavour to Fedora! My 2 cents:

• Arch is like a barebones Lego box without instructions, only a set of pictures. Sure, you get a paper telling you how to ensamble a basic OS, but what to do of it is up to you. For example, you might want a firewall there, right? or maybe a systemd timer to trim your ssd? IDK, you can guess it on your own. The pieces are there, it's up to you to decide what to use.
• Endeavour is like that same Lego box where someone handled you the manual from another themed box. If you installed Arch on your own, and felt like you might've missed something, or something feels off, EndeavourOS just gives you the ensambled set for you to play with. The problem? No problem, really. It feels like a greatly configured Arch installation.
• Fedora feels like a themed box. You don't have whole lot of bricks like that other unthemed box (AUR), but damn, everything just works and it works great. Only caveat is that non free stuff (drivers, codecs, etc) require that you input some commands (but really, every linux distro requires this still). So far, my experience is between "wow, I didn't know you could do/have this! Must've missed it in the arch wiki" and "damn, there's no easy way to install X in Fedora? I miss the AUR :("

If you want close to the bare minimum of software needed to run a system, and setup everything exactly as you like it, use arch.

If you want a preconfigured system that is performant, stable, secure, but still able to be customized to your liking, use Fedora.

If your scared of using a comand line for installation, use EndeavorOS.

I have used all 3 of these, in some capacity. I run my servers on Fedora Workstation, because it just works and comes with properly configured sepolicies out of the box. Arch has been the daily driver on my desktop/laptops for almost a decade now, because I often like to experiment with new programs and replacements for commonly used software, and the arch wiki is a wonderful. I tried EndeavorOS on an old PC to play YouTube videos/stream on my TV and it worked fine. I had to uninstall a handful of apps it came preloaded with, but that's easy enough with an arch base. But IMO, now that the archinstall tool exists and is officially supported, there is actually no reason to use EndeavorOS unless you really don't want to type a couple commands into a command line.

I'm really enjoying Fedora (just switched from Ubuntu and previously Debian). More current than Debian, doesn't have Ubuntu's canonical baggage, and more stable than Arch (nothing wrong with Arch, it's just more bleeding edge than I want for anything other than experimenting. YMMV. And Arch documentation is fantastic - I use it to help unravel issues/find solutions on other distros after a bit of translation and sanity checks).

Fedora is well inside the Gnome camp but it's basically unaltered so you feel freer to tweak and make it your own. (you can obviously run any environment you want).

Not sure if Red Hat's nonsense will infect Fedora down the road but I can switch it up if I feel like it later. (for a server, I'd just do Debian or possibly Ubuntu.)

Unfortunately, my main machine remains Windows with WSL. Too many things (of what I need) just won't run on Linux...

I think you want something boring. Boring, in terms of "it just works", which is essential for school. You want to focus on learning, not troubleshooting.

I've been looking around a bit more, and now I'm kind of curious about Fedora, specifically the KDE spin (or i3, I haven't quite decided).

Use Fedora Atomic (immutable versions of Workstation/ KDE spin, etc.). Especially uBlue. It's a community edition on universal-blue.org, which features very vanilla images of Silverblue for example, but with some QoL-changes, many inofficial DEs/ TWMs, and much more.

The cool thing is, you can just rebase to whatever spin you like, e.g. KDE and i3 and don't need to decide. It's like a reinstall, without actually loosing data.

It's also extremely robust (barely breakable) and in general doesn't get in your way.

While it's not rolling release, the stability improvements and user experience compared to something like Arch, or even a more comfortable fork like EndeavourOS, seem quite decent

It's not only decent, it's great! Everything "just werks™" and it's very very reliable.
In terms of stability (update schedule) it's a great mix between very well tested, but not stale.
I wouldn't like to update daily like on Arch.

but in your experience, does that make up for the lack of the AUR?

The cool thing is, you don't loose anything.
I, for example, have an Arch container in Distrobox, and I use it all the time. I even have access to the AUR and all Arch packages on my image based Fedora install.
This gives me bleeding edge software, especially for the terminal, without risking breaking my host OS. Arch seems to be too high maintenance for me, and I'm not willing to spend my time troubleshooting.

Fedora has been what I've been using for years. I used arch before for about a year and I still love it but I've just been fuckin with fedora

If you want to use the device for school and work I highly recommend a stable distro over rolling release. When it comes to stability nothing beats Debian and Debian 12 recently released so now is a good time to install it.

Arch and endeavour should fall under the same category. You are more likely to break your system, but tinkerers love how barebones those are. I have not broken arch in the 4 years that I used it, but I did dodge a few updates which would have nuked my system. Fedora will be more stable, and it will get fewer breaking changes due to it's point release schedule.

I personally go with archinstall for an easy arch install, I recommend that to most of the people

I recently started using Fedora 39 KDE Spin as my main driver. It mostly just works out of the box. You'll need to add some repos to get media support etc. but that is just a quick Google-search away.

I have been using Debian for a long time for my home server and to be honest, and it never once failed me. In my experience, Debian on a server is just rock solid. When I made the switch from Win11 (I don't like a snooping AI in Notepad) to Debian (stable) I wasn't that happy. Apps were outdated, Wayland was f**king things up, etc. So I switched to Debian testing (trixie) and installed KDE the manual way. That way I hoped to get a really 'clean' system, leaving some of the standard apps (that I wouldn't be using anyway) behind. Although Debian testing seemed really stable, the 'manual way' left me with some quirks that left me unhappy. For a reason I can't remember, I decided to try out Fedora 39. And I have to say, it has been great. Up to date apps, no unexpected errors or crashes, etc.

Also consider Universal Blue Kinoite or Bazzite:

• https://universal-blue.org/
  • https://universal-blue.org/#advantages-over-traditional-linux-desktops
• https://bazzite.gg/
  • https://github.com/ublue-os/bazzite/#about--features

Think Fedora Kinoite, but with extra goodness.

Miss the AUR? Just spin up an Arch Distrobox with ujust distrobox-arch and export whatever you want. just and distrobox are pretty amazing.

Can also do the same with Ubuntu/Debian distroboxes.

• https://github.com/casey/just
• https://github.com/89luca89/distrobox

Atomic Fedora is amazing.

• https://universal-blue.org/introduction/

Have an Nvidia card?

• https://universal-blue.org/images/nvidia/

Images also available for Framework and Surface as well.

Wanna make your own IMG?

• https://universal-blue.org/tinker/make-your-own/

Wanna focus more on work/development?

• https://projectbluefin.io/

My vote is Fedora. It offers fresh yet stable packaging, and a polished experience that you can rely on. You can then use flatpaks for even newer apps, or opt to run Arch in a container with distrobox/toolbox and play with as many cutting edge apps as you want, all as if they were installed on the host.

Finally, if you like what you see in Fedora, consider trying Fedora Silverblue, Kinoite, or any of their other immutable distros.

Once Arch is set up you have Endeavour

I really don’t see a reason to use Arch over it outside of the initial learning experience and bragging on the internet

I have been using Fedora Workstation for years now, and I plan to switch to the KDE spin when Fedora 40 is released. I will absolutely never miss the rolling release model, and Fedora has been stable enough that I basically never have any issues. You get updates quickly, but even with the speed it manages to be very stable, at least compared to bleeding edge distros like Arch. There are still MANY things you can use the Arch wiki for in Fedora, so it's still my first place to check for most things. But there are also forums for Fedora, and lots of community members that have answered questions in those forums, just not to the extent of something like Ubuntu. It is mainstream enough that you can find most things with Linux releases packaged for it, so I haven't had an issue with compatibility, either. It's overall a very solid choice, and I would recommend it.

Disclaimer: I am by no means a Linux expert, but figured I could give my 2 cents.

I recently installed Fedora on one of my machines that I mainly use for web browsing, file downloading, and general office like activities. And I don't have much experience with it yet. I specifically went the KDE route, as I am a huge fan of what KDE has to offer. That being said, for the most part everything "just works." Sorry I don't have much more to say about Fedora, but I will report back as I use it more.

The distro I have used for a few years now that I quite enjoy is Arch. What drew me to Arch was the fact that it is bleeding edge. That being said, as with anything bleeding edge, you should have backups and other contingency plans for failure. That should be done for all systems, but doubly so with things that are bleeding edge I would argue. Arch has been quite stable for me, but I would say that it is more tailored to someone who is looking to tinker. On my desktop, I unfortunately still run windows due to some proprietary hardware and software that I have yet to figure out how to get working within Arch. The biggest issue I have had with Arch over the few years that I have been using it comes down to the Nvidia graphics card I use in my desktop. I know not everyone has had the same issues I have had with Nvidia, but getting wayland working on it, as well as just general multi-monitor issues, have sort of taken the wind out of my sails for linux on my desktop computer.

Here are a few resources I would recommend checking out to help you make your decision [https://distrochooser.de/](Distro Chooser) - Distro Chooser asks questions about what you are looking for and the like to help you pick a distro to try. [https://linux-hardware.org/](Linux Hardware) - This is Linux Hardware website and is quite handy for looking into getting drivers,and checking to see if there are known bugs for specific hardware you are trying to use on a Linux system.

Fedora requires less maintenance which is important in a university scenario. But then you have those Exam Safe Browsers which don't run on wine anyway.

If you're going to miss AUR-levels of package count, my advice is to grab openSUSE (preferably non-Leap), get familiar with zypper and yast, then add the Packman repo. Combined with the OBS (basically the openSUSE version of the AUR), you'll have pretty high package availability.

openSUSE also requires less maintenance than Arch.

But generally, I recommend EndeavourOS, just add the chaotic-aur so you don't spend hours compiling, and have fun!

I love my arch linux :)

Arch and EndeavourOS are the same once installed. EndeavourOS just helps get your system setup and fully configured more quickly.

Nothing wrong with experimenting though of that is something you enjoy.

I used Fedora for many years and liked it but it was years ago now. I have used Arch. I mostly use EndeavourOS these days.

My “play” installation is Chimera Linux. I want to check-out VanillaOS and LMDE. I have thought about trying Fedora ( or maybe Nobara ) again.

Try fedora silverblue or kinoite and if you want access to aur use distrobox. The advantage is zero maintenance compared to arch where you have to have much mroe knowledge and time to setup your system and keep it up to date

Fedora has lots of weird bugs in my experience, but some people seem to love it.

Went from debian to arch and oh boy i like it.
Bleeding edge for the latest features (most of them stable), Arch Wiki is awesome and the AUR is really nice to have for managing and installing software from external sources.

With the options you gave, Fedora. Not really into the AUR. I don't think it is bad, just not for me.

Consider immutable, I use ublue-kinoite (fedora spin 'with batteries') and use a distrobox Arch for the AUR and development, best of both worlds, rock stable main OS, cutting edge rolling release as needed. I've been very happy, and if you're using for uni and work, reliability should be a consideration.