Hello everyone,

I'm tempted to switch to Arch Linux because of the rolling release principle. I'm kinda tired of fully updating the distro when a new release comes up, always with fresh installs and so on because something (almost all the time), doesn't get updated as intended and stuff break. What holds me back are the people which are complaining about how much time Arch requires to be maintained. I kinda don't have this luxury: time.

I've managed to install Arch one (wayland, btrfs, kde), on my machine. It seems stable.

I have a ThinkPad T590 with i7-8665U, UHD 620, 1TB NVMe (any tips on mounting the NVMe more efficiently? I'm giving it the ssd flag).

What are your thoughts?

Many thanks!

Hello! In what cases should I pick the LTS kernel (linux-lts), version over the default one (linux)?

When I first started looking into arch, I read that rolling release can cause some problems, because bleeding-edge updates can be buggy compared to "stable" versions. However I've seen some threads mentioning arch's stability because it's rolling release, since you can constantly and incrementally update your system rather than occasional big updates that can break things.

So are there conflicting ideas about stability, or do the benefits just outweigh the drawbacks?

EDIT: Thanks for the responses, lots of great answers!

I have used linux kernel for years but i’m interesting in trying lts. Is it more stable, in your experience? Did you prefer linux or lts?

I’m also thinking of trying arch in my homeserver/plex box. Thought lts might be better here. I have used ubuntu server for a long time but i have a lot of free time so don’t mind maintaining. That being said, lts is prob the preferred kernel i think. But have you seen much difference in kernels?

So this will be my 2nd time trying Arch. The first time I tried it I would just update every day and eventually I got a kernel panic. Is there anything, absolutely anything I should know in order to NEVER break Arch? Do I read the update news?

I'm new to arch and have been using fedora a while, i like that on fedora i have newer kernels and packages than debian but i love the stability. I would like to switch to arch because of how customisable it is and how lightweight it is, but i need the stability. (I do know arch is rolling release)

I started using arch when my time was abundant and was not that valuable, those were the times I gain pleasure for tweaking the vimrcs and doing distro hops. And archlinux is the last distribution I hopped to, I love it, the wiki, the minimalism, you can just feel that it is a distribution with effort being poured into and polished over time.

Yesterday, someone posted here asking opinions on switching to arch, and I give the suggestion that he shouldn't, the reason is simple: the software iterates too fast and installing new package may require a reboot (because of `-Syu`), which translates to productivity loss. (see my reply for more)

I felt the need for a distribution Arch LTS, which is something that have multi-year support, or something that the base system is fixed (stuff like kernel, gcc), or nix-like, I don't know, the goal is to have a distribution that is suited for daily productivity use and suited for the scientific community, without losing arch's minimalism, efforts and wiki.

Anyone else thinks Arch LTS is a good idea? With CentOS being gone, this is a good opportunity for Arch to rise. (but please set a barrier to keep the stupid people from flooding in)

The post: https://www.reddit.com/r/archlinux/comments/ktk4ba/i_want_to_switch_from_fedora_to_arch_linux_and_i/

My reply: https://www.reddit.com/r/archlinux/comments/ktk4ba/i_want_to_switch_from_fedora_to_arch_linux_and_i/gimzzu2?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

I am thinking of trying to install Arch on my system, I have managed to install it within VirtualBox all good so after backing up I might try to install it on my system. I like how massive Arch's repository is and that it's very customisable and it's rolling release. Though it has a reputation for instability. I plan to run software that will be running 24/7 (Cryptocurrency mining, SSH server, home server, a sort of game streaming server, etc). I want my system to not crash so these things will stay up and running, I also use it as my regular PC. So ideally I would like it to be rolling release but not bleeding edge with a few exceptions (for example I would like the latest version of WINE). What are the best ways of doing this?

I've been using pure Arch Linux for 2 years now and have quite a bit of experience configuring all sorts of things, from WM setups to custom kernels. But along the way, I’ve also realized that too much freedom can be a double-edged sword—one "dumb" config mistake and boom, my system is bricked. 😭

So now I’m looking for an Arch-based distro that:
Has all the features I need for development and daily work.
Is stable enough, so I don’t have to worry about random breakages.
Still keeps the Arch spirit, but with a bit of a safety net to prevent total disaster.

Anyone with experience using Manjaro, EndeavourOS, CachyOS, or other similar distros? Or is there an even better choice out there? I’d love to hear your thoughts! 🙏

Edit: have a tried with Manjaro, Manjaro is bloat btw🙏

I often use Linux for work and I need a stable Linux OS to work on. How much time does a installation lasts before breaking after upgrades? How fast and productive to work with is it? Please give me your personal opinion, I work as a software developer.

Best regards

Pretty new to Linux, people keep telling me to use an LTS kernel with my first ever Arch setup. Could someone tell me why? I've been running it for 2 weeks with no issues, I can't really see why I need an LTS kernel.

How crucial is it to have an LTS kernel? How does it benefit me? Cheers! Now saying I shouldn't just asking for an in-depth explanation on why its so recommended and how important it actually is.