Realizing Arch isn't for me after updating broke VLC
I realized my VLC was broke some point in the week after updating Arch. I spend time troubleshooting then find a forum post with replies from an Arch moderator saying they knew it would happen and it's my fault for not wanting to read through pages of changelogs. Another mod post says they won't announce that on the RSS feed either. I thought I was doing good by following the RSS but I guess that's not enough.
I've been happily using Arch for 5 years but after reading those posts I've decided to look for a different distro. Does anyone have recommendations for the closest I can get to Arch but with a different attitude around updating?
like this
pineapple
in reply to makeitwonderful • • •makeitwonderful
in reply to pineapple • • •Ricaz
in reply to makeitwonderful • • •makeitwonderful
in reply to Ricaz • • •propter_hog [any, any]
in reply to pineapple • • •Ricaz
in reply to propter_hog [any, any] • • •Arch is definitely not "an experimental distro". It doesn't just break, and all the software in their repos is considered stable.
If you have been using Arch for any meaningful amount of time, the massive output from OPs upgrade should be glaring.
propter_hog [any, any]
in reply to Ricaz • • •SheeEttin
in reply to makeitwonderful • • •en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principl…
Someone should inform whoever made that change. If a package is split in a new release, the initial state should match the final as closely as possible, in this case by installing the new optional dependencies automatically. (Although I'm not sure why they'd want to split everything out like that anyway; no other VLC distribution does that, so splitting is itself a violation.)
Maybe Manjaro might be an alternative? I haven't personally used it. I don't like this kind of surprise, so I stick to boring distros like Debian. I used to use CentOS but it was too boring.
principle in computer system design
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)makeitwonderful
in reply to SheeEttin • • •You just gave me words for something that was previously just vague internal grumbling and emotions.
Manjaro knows how to aesthetically please me with their color choices and background art. I've got a negative impression from various podcasts and forum posts but I'm realizing I need to look into that more because I can't recall specifics besides something about a past issue with package distribution.
𝕛𝕨𝕞-𝕕𝕖𝕧
in reply to makeitwonderful • • •i would recommend against manjaro or endeavorOS and such similar arch based distributions. they’re neat and more stable but have similar issues sometimes, for example the manjaro maintainers are generally known as pretty egregiously irresponsible.
arch is kind of a clusterfuck. the user experience is really poor for a modern linux distribution and the community has an insular attitude of calling everything a skill issue.
i used and maintained a bunch of arch systems for a long time. if you do this you inevitably end up using AUR packages, as some utilities a normal person would use for home and server shit are only available through AUR. updating gets fucky and it’s way more annoying bc you end up needing to constantly read long ass changelogs bc some dude changed the formatting in one UI element and pushed to main at 3AM and it won’t just updated with -Syu or similar args.
i was talking about this earlier on lemmy as an example of terrible UX and all the arch fanboys came to downvote me and write paragraphs in droves talking about how it’s actually just the user’s fault for using the AUR and that i don’t know how pacman works. one guy claimed it’s like Debian PPAs. uh no, the AUR is far less optional lmfao. and i do know how yay and pacman work, i had no trouble, i was just pointing out it was annoying to deal with constantly when using a system like a normal person.
when an OS has no user in mind when designing it… its kind of a shit OS and apparently forms a shit culture around it too, in my experiences the past few years on the internet.
BlueSquid0741
in reply to SheeEttin • • •Manjaro is significantly worse with updates breaking.
I used for a little while in 2018 and again in 2019, both times ended because it once became stuck in a boot loop after updates, and another time couldn’t boot after updates.
suburban_hillbilly
in reply to SheeEttin • • •Sometimes. Some of us out there have use cases where we really, really don't want our systems making choices for us and would rather read the notes every time. One could equally well argue that an OS whose entire purpose is letting the user make the choice suddenly doing something automatically without asking for input is the break in state that users would find astonishing.
SheeEttin
in reply to suburban_hillbilly • • •I'd say you want Linux from Scratch then, but even then the Linux kernel maintainers are making choices for you.
But Linus is very firm in that they never break userspace, so you should never see an issue like this when updating the kernel.
suburban_hillbilly
in reply to makeitwonderful • • •makeitwonderful
in reply to suburban_hillbilly • • •Ricaz
in reply to makeitwonderful • • •procapra
in reply to makeitwonderful • • •data1701d (He/Him)
in reply to procapra • • •I second Debian Testing. The only issues I have are updates slow down during package freezes and sometimes, a package you are using becomes a victim of a package transition. Both are symptoms of Testing being exactly what it says, so I can't blame them, but still a valid annoyance.
The worst example was FreeCAD had a dependency being transitioned, so FreeCAD disappeared from Testing for a while, meaning my system wouldn't update if I wanted to keep FreeCAD. In the end, I just gave up and used the Flatpak. (I probably could have installed from Unstable, but whatever.)
Truth be told, I kind of wish there was a project to keep some new packages flowing to Testing users during freezes. I get why Debian themselves doesn't do it - it would be a nightmare to maintain - but an outside community project would be amazing. It wouldn't exactly be easy, but such a project wouldn't need to necessarily do every package (just desired ones), and they would only need to maintain them a couple months until new versions start flowing into Testing again. I think the biggest difficulty is not going too far ahead of what will end up in Testing post-freeze.
beleza pura
in reply to procapra • • •debian testing is for testing purposes only. you should never daily drive debian testing (unless you know what you're doing)
also, we're about to get a new debian release (trixie), this is literally the worst time you could choose to daily drive debian testing
gonzo-rand19 likes this.
neon_nova
in reply to makeitwonderful • • •Arch is really for those who like to troubleshoot and actively maintain things when they break.
I’m pretty decent with linux and for the most part, I can fix arch when it breaks, but I don’t have the time for that. For that reason, I use Fedora and recommend mint.
MalReynolds
in reply to neon_nova • • •GraveyardOrbit
in reply to neon_nova • • •Derin
in reply to GraveyardOrbit • • •I've been using arch for almost a decade, and haven't had the system break.
I also don't use aur helpers as I don't like or trust them - I do tend to read PKGBUILDs before using them.
Still shocked that OP thought a new opt-depends was "lost in pages and pages of changelogs".
PrivateNoob
in reply to GraveyardOrbit • • •vanDerVaartBlackenedRanch [none/use name]
in reply to makeitwonderful • • •Fedora if you do not gain joy from troubleshooting
Debian sid if you do.
OhVenus_Baby
in reply to makeitwonderful • • •makeitwonderful
in reply to OhVenus_Baby • • •I don't mind trading upfront effort for stability. I enjoyed setting up Arch and I'm still benefiting from insights gained from choosing my setup packages there.
Having nearly latest versions of packages is important to me because I can get into a flow after the initial excitement of a new feature being released but if I have to wait long to get my hands on it that won't happen. In this case, a smaller loss of my excitement to watch a video happened in the time it took me to figure out what was up with VLC.
Cenotaph
in reply to makeitwonderful • • •makeitwonderful
in reply to Cenotaph • • •Opensuse Tumbleweed has made my list to try out.
Thanks for CachyOS. This is my first time hearing of it so I've got some reading to do.
BlueSquid0741
in reply to makeitwonderful • • •CachyOS and Endeavour OS are the two common Arch derivatives - basically “Arch in easy mode”. They’re both very good.
Manjaro is another but it brings its own set of problems that I never have the time or patience to deal with.
I’m using CachyOS now since October. I’m enjoying it and haven’t come across any issues yet that weren’t easily fixed.
This is the first time in 5 years I haven’t been on opensuse.
slaveOne
in reply to makeitwonderful • • •Ada
in reply to slaveOne • • •makeitwonderful
in reply to slaveOne • • •I like having Timeshift in place for if I can't figure out what went wrong.
In this case, I didn't use VLC until days after I had updated so my mind didn't go to an issue from updating right away. I make a high amount of accidental inputs while using laptops and I don't always notice so a lot of my issues end up being unintentional configuration changes from weeks or months ago.
cyborganism
in reply to makeitwonderful • • •I've been using Ubuntu/Kubuntu since 2004 and I've always been happy and had very little problems.
It's a good, no hassle distro that works and is fairly up to date, especially if you use the non-LTS ones. I prefer staying with LTS though. At least my OS is stable and I don't have to spend my free time troubleshooting anything.
makeitwonderful
in reply to cyborganism • • •My first experience with Linux was Ubuntu back in 2007! I thought it was interesting but didn't become a Linux user until 12 years later when I realized gaming was possible without dual booting.
Something I experience a lot is getting excited for new features. It gives me an energy I can use to start a project I wouldn't have done otherwise. I need to be able to start soon after hearing about the new feature or I risk losing the excitement and missing out on the energy it would have provided.
cyborganism
in reply to makeitwonderful • • •scoobford
in reply to makeitwonderful • • •kylian0087
in reply to scoobford • • •flatbield
in reply to makeitwonderful • • •beleza pura
in reply to flatbield • • •paequ2
in reply to makeitwonderful • • •I've been enjoying Guix for the last 8 days. You declare your OS and home config in a file and you can check them into source control. It was originally a fork of NixOS, but has diverged a lot.
The CLIs and APIs are pretty nice. They have a concept of "channels", which are git repos you can download software from. The default official channel only hosts FOSS software, but you can trivially add non-FOSS channels and they work just as well as the first-party channels.
Each channel update and package install, removal, update get put on a log, which you can trivially jump between.
guix package --switch-genereation=28
and boom you're at that generation (it's like a git commit). The software and config changes get saved in the generation so the jump is clean and atomic. I actually bisected my OS yesterday to track a bug! That was cool. You can also create and share isolated, reproducible environments.Guix works with Flatpak and distrobox as well, in case some software isn't available in existing channels. I got HiDPI, Zoom, Logseq, Syncthing, and Tailscale working.
The biggest drawback for me so far is that it doesn't use systemd. Not sure if it's a dealbreaker for me yet. Systemd does way more than just manage system services, so GNU Shepherd (which Guix uses) isn't a real replacement.
GNU Guix transactional package manager and distribution — GNU Guix
guix.gnu.orgpaequ2
2025-07-06 20:12:44
obnomus
in reply to makeitwonderful • • •makeitwonderful
in reply to obnomus • • •obnomus
in reply to makeitwonderful • • •Mordikan
in reply to makeitwonderful • • •like this
gonzo-rand19 likes this.
Shayeta
in reply to Mordikan • • •beleza pura
in reply to makeitwonderful • • •like this
themadcodger likes this.
makeitwonderful
in reply to beleza pura • • •I enjoyed getting to pick out a lot of the small details by choosing what was going on my system. Something about having the minimum amount needed to meet my needs eases a variety of my computing related anxieties.
I've always managed to solve issues I've encountered but reading that forum post made me realize I may have been attributing issues from updates to Linux in general instead of my distro choice.
beleza pura
in reply to makeitwonderful • • •llii
in reply to beleza pura • • •Ricaz
in reply to llii • • •beleza pura
in reply to llii • • •it is
...if you're willing to put in the effort to play linux
llii
in reply to beleza pura • • •beleza pura
in reply to llii • • •i believe you. also, my great uncle has smoked since he was 13 and he's now 86 and is still alive
seriously, though, if you do everything right, arch is a great system. it is really well put together and very stable all things considered. the problem is the "doing everything right" part. what happened to op is pretty common if you stop reviewing your updates one by one for a week or two. if you're used to that, then arch is perfect. otherwise, it's a chore
llii
in reply to beleza pura • • •This is just not true. Its pretty rare that you have to manually intervene when updating.
highduc
in reply to beleza pura • • •Nico198X
in reply to beleza pura • • •beleza pura
in reply to Nico198X • • •Nico198X
in reply to beleza pura • • •i really don't think that's true about arch, but in general i get that there is a spectrum of how much ppl want to be active in the maintenance of their computer.
i use EndeavourOS, but for my wife i give her Kalpa, which is atomic and much more "less fuss, just use computer."
maybe @makeitwonder would like an immutable distro.
verdigris
in reply to beleza pura • • •johnnyb
in reply to makeitwonderful • • •makeitwonderful
in reply to johnnyb • • •Installing the dependencies did fix it.
I decided I wanted to switch because in the time it took for me to figure that out I lost the excitement for what I was about to watch.
Derin
in reply to makeitwonderful • • •New optional dependencies also happen in other distributions, just happens a lot less as they aren't rolling release distributions.
Learning to parse terminal output for what's relevant is a good and sometimes necessary skill.
makeitwonderful
in reply to Derin • • •You're probably right, this is a issue that isn't unique to Arch. In this case, I would have been fine if a default had been chosen for people who didn't do the reading. Something like installing a plugin that will keep basic functionally of the app working.
I agree that reviewing terminal output is a valuable skill. I'm often lacking the attention or energy to pay attention to every update. I wish that wasn't the case because I believe I have higher than average emotional reactions when things go unexpectedly but the lack of attention -> unexpected event -> emotional reaction loop is a pattern of my life I've come to accept.
Derin
in reply to makeitwonderful • • •Please note that I wasn't passing judgement with my comment, I'm just stating that it will happen with pretty much all Linux distributions.
For example, when upgrading major Debian versions, the same will happen - but you'll usually get thrown into a full screen TUI with interactive buttons asking you how to proceed. So it isn't really possible to leave the system in a non-functional state.
Definitely check out a different, stability first distro. However, note that you will then have the problem of software being old when you want a new feature!
Karna
in reply to makeitwonderful • • •Rule of Thumb: if your use case is not satisfied by your current Distro, then move to the one that does.
Arch or rolling release distros are great if you want latest version of software/packages as soon as possible. Downside is you need to put more effort/time to maintain it by yourself.
On the other hand, fixed release distros (e.g. Debian) doesn't offer latest packages immediately. But, given that packages are tested for distro release, so you will have a more stable (in relative term) system for yourself with minimal effort.
I used to like rolling release distros on my college days as I had plenty of time back then. Now, I'm settled on fixed release ditro as it suits my current use case.
jenesaisquoi
in reply to makeitwonderful • • •oo1
in reply to makeitwonderful • • •Would a flatpak would survive this update?
I do use arch on some computers but with several flatpaks for some applications that I feel will be safer - but i don't really know.
Maybe i just update and see what happens.
Ricaz
in reply to oo1 • • •Carl [he/him]
in reply to makeitwonderful • • •makeitwonderful
in reply to Carl [he/him] • • •Debian is my go to for setting up a new server because of the stability and project longevity.
The excitement of features from the cutting edge gives me free energy to start new projects that I don't experience if I wait for the stable release.
utopiah
in reply to makeitwonderful • • •I don't understand how Debian limits that. You can use Debian for your distribution BUT for whatever you want to be cutting edge, use whatever alternative method you want. It can be alternative package managers, e.g.
am
but if you want the absolute bleeding edge, go on the repository of the project, get a specific branch, build, install, use. That's absolutely no problem with even Debian stable.I'm genuinely confused at comments implying that have a stable distribution means having outdated software.
electric_nan
in reply to utopiah • • •RedSnt 👓♂️🖥️
in reply to makeitwonderful • • •CarrotsHaveEars
in reply to RedSnt 👓♂️🖥️ • • •Cysio
in reply to RedSnt 👓♂️🖥️ • • •Undaunted
in reply to makeitwonderful • • •I can totally understand that. In case you still want to give it a chance, I can highly recommend EndeavorOS. It's basically pre-styled, pure Arch. But it has a welcome dialog, where you have a warning banner at the top if you need to be careful regarding an update. This directly links you to their Gitlab and forum with the steps you'd need to take to not break anything. This saved me multiple times already and I never broke my system, despite not even reading the Arch RSS feed or changelogs.
Besides the EndeavorOS forum is waaaay friendlier compared to the Arch one.
grillme
in reply to Undaunted • • •Eugenia
in reply to makeitwonderful • • •I prefer Debian-Testing. Basically, a rolling release, but not unstable. Arch is akin to Debian -Sid, which is unstable. The latest packages are brought in to -Sid after some rudimentary testing on -experimental. But only the stuff that make it and are solid on -sid, make it to -testing. Basically, Debian has 2 layers of siphoning bugs before they even make it to -testing. And that's why the -stable branch is so solid, because whatever makes it there, has to go through the 3 branches.
So if you like rolling releases with much newer packages, consider -testing. The easiest way is to wait for the Trixie release, and then do the manual update to -testing by changing the repository names (there are online tutorials about it). The other way is to get a -testing iso, but these usually are broken because most people "upgrade" their installed distro to testing instead of just install it outright.
I've been using -testing for over a year now with 0 problems. Even Google is using -testing internally! I also have had Arch installed and endeavouros, and have had 3 problems that I had to fix in 5 months.
drspod
in reply to Eugenia • • •mina86
in reply to drspod • • •drspod
in reply to mina86 • • •Only after they meet the requirements to be moved from unstable.
From the wiki:
and
- wiki.debian.org/DebianTesting
There is some advice on that page about how to deal with security updates for testing and I'm wondering how people who use testing take that advice, and what changes they make to get security updates. Or maybe you don't bother. That's what I mean.
DebianTesting - Debian Wiki
wiki.debian.orgEugenia
in reply to drspod • • •mina86
in reply to Eugenia • • •I’ve installed Debian testing from ISO a handful of times and never had any issues.
Eugenia
in reply to mina86 • • •Zetta
in reply to makeitwonderful • • •heythatsprettygood
in reply to Zetta • • •ReversalHatchery
in reply to heythatsprettygood • • •that's exactly how updates should work in every desktop distro. as an option of course.
systemd made it possible to install updates on shutdown.
packagekit enabled kde software to automatically obtain and prepare the updates.
plasma does the final touch nowadays to ask you on the reboot/shutdown dialog whether you want to install them.
Basically all the system is in place, with code from widely used parties. packagekit can even integrate with your filesystem to make a snapshot before install. It's wonderful. yet, it seems as if only fedora supports this full setup right now? or is there anything else?
Philamand
in reply to Zetta • • •verdigris
in reply to Philamand • • •Philamand
in reply to verdigris • • •verdigris
in reply to Philamand • • •As long as they're not for the core Fedora projects why not? Bugs for those should be scarce and there are many other users to report them anyway.
Using and contributing to FOSS is hardly scabbing regardless. Unless you're donating to the project I wouldn't consider even bug reporting as directly supporting IBM. The tangible profit to them is pennies if that.
Mactan
in reply to makeitwonderful • • •Ricaz
in reply to Mactan • • •ses hat
in reply to makeitwonderful • • •Allero
in reply to makeitwonderful • • •Based on what you describe, I would strongly recommend going with OpenSUSE Tumbleweed. It's just as bleeding-edge as Arch, but all packages go through automatic testing to ensure they won't break anything, and if some manual actions are required, it will offer options right before update. Moreover, snapper in enabled by default on btrfs partitions, and it makes snapshots automatically before updates, so even if something breaks somehow, reverting takes a few seconds.
One small footnote is that you'll need to add separate VLC repo or Packman for VLC to have full functionality - proprietary codecs are one of the rare things official repos don't feature for legal reasons.
On Arch rant: I've always been weirded out by this "Arch is actually stable, you just have to watch every news post for manual interventions before every update, oh, and you better update very often" attitude.
Like, no, this is not called stable or even usable for general audience. Updating your system and praying for it not to break while studying everything you need to know is antithetical to stability and makes for an awful daily driver.
MyNameIsRichard
in reply to Allero • • •You have to watch the factory mailing list and make any manual interventions for Tumbleweed, and frankly, you should be watching the news and taking any action required no matter the os.
Karna
in reply to MyNameIsRichard • • •This is not really true for fixed release distros. I can’t remember when was the last time I had to read through the release note before Ubuntu version upgrade, or upgrading any package.
MyNameIsRichard
in reply to Karna • • •Karna
in reply to MyNameIsRichard • • •Just to reiterate the same point - in fixed release, a package version is not released until all known issues are resolved.
At no point, it is end user responsibility to bother checking anything before installing a new version.
MyNameIsRichard
in reply to Karna • • •Karna
in reply to MyNameIsRichard • • •Bugs are of two types - known (found during testing by Distro maintainer) and unknown.
Fixed release fixes known bugs before pushing packages.
It is following the standard development life cycle.
MyNameIsRichard
in reply to Karna • • •So do rolling releases. What's your point?
Karna
in reply to MyNameIsRichard • • •suburban_hillbilly
in reply to Karna • • •Karna
in reply to suburban_hillbilly • • •Allero
in reply to MyNameIsRichard • • •MyNameIsRichard
in reply to Allero • • •Anyone who is not curious enough to type
yay -Pw
before typingyay
should probably stick with something like Windows. And even then, you should watch out for the rare manual intervention.Edit: Tone.
suburban_hillbilly
in reply to MyNameIsRichard • • •FFS dude. It's not lazy want updates to be as simple and pain free as possible. The entire point of these universal machines is to automate shit so we don't have to think about it so much. We have different distros to run them because people prefer different ways of doing things. The one you pick doesn't make you better or worse in any way. OP found out Arch is more work than they want to put up with for their daily driver and the benefits aren't worth the cost. That's a pretty big fucking club to be calling everyone in it lazy.
This kind of elitism is the most unnecessary, useless, vacuous, tedious horseshit and hurts Linux by pushing people away for nothing. Stop it.
Allero
in reply to MyNameIsRichard • • •I don't think it makes sense to gatekeep Linux only to those who has time, energy, and dedication to continuously check for necessary interventions and to familiarize themselves with all the terminal utilities in the first place.
That is a sort of elitism we need to carefully avoid - one, because otherwise it would halven the desktop Linux community, and two, because there's a huge group of people out there who need what Linux offers, but cannot dedicate themselves to it in the way enthusiasts do.
For them, there must be an option to push the button and get a smooth update, with everything resolved automatically or prompted in a user-friendly way. Arch is not that.
You feel comfy doing this - alright, no one stops you, Arch is great and has a purpose. But we should never put blame on users for not using their system The Arch Way™, because it's too technical, too engaged, and is just a poor fit for most. People will not and should not accommodate for this just to use their system. There's no need to.
If someone chose Arch and complains that it breaks things, it could be useful to point out Arch doesn't have required guardrails to make it operable in a way they expect, and direct the user to other distributions that have them and potentially least painful ways to migrate.
Having tried Arch and its derivatives, and recognizing their strong points, I can absolutely tell the person needs another distribution, and that's alright! Whatever fits anybody is up to them. And for stable rolling release experience without the need for manual checking (but also without some of the power features of Arch mainly geared toward enthusiasts) there's OpenSUSE Tumbleweed.
Edit: Tone.
MyNameIsRichard
in reply to Allero • • •I don't use Arch, I use Endeavour because they took Arch and made it better. As to why I used yay as my example, there are two reasons:
Allero
in reply to MyNameIsRichard • • •I see!
I do, in fact, use Endeavour on my desktop as well, simply because I like snappiness and choice of Arch and similarly don't wanna bother with the pure one (and also EndeavourOS forums are more friendly in my experience). I run OpenSUSE Slowroll (an experimental Tumbleweed build, same idea as Manjaro, but actually done right) on my other laptop, so can speak from the experience on both ends.
With Slowroll (and my gf's Tumbleweed) I've only once faced the need for manual intervention, and it was simply to resolve a dependency change by choosing which package to leave - literally enter one number, and then it went on peacefully and correctly installing 1460 updates (yeah, they pushed a big Tumbleweed dump, 3.5 gigs total). On Arch and EndeavourOS, the last intervention was just recently, that's the one OP talks about, and they do happen more often and are more complicated than I'd like.
MyNameIsRichard
in reply to Allero • • •Allero
in reply to MyNameIsRichard • • •I'd say one issue in 8 years is a stellar track record!
But I agree they should have warned users a better way.
Anyway, I like how btrfs is treated within Tumbleweed - snapper is fully configured and enabled by default, and you can load a snapshot and rollback into it from the boot menu - all that would take you less than a minute, and any faulty update will be gone for good. With ext4, though, you might need Timeshift. But then, all that can be done within Arch with just a few more tweaks!
MyNameIsRichard
in reply to Allero • • •Yeah, it's a pretty good track record. It was definitely a failure of communication in that instance, but iirc, they ended up rolling the change back a couple of days later.
kman [he/him]
in reply to makeitwonderful • • •BETYU
in reply to makeitwonderful • • •Home - EndeavourOS
EndeavourOSquantum_faun
in reply to BETYU • • •propter_hog [any, any]
in reply to makeitwonderful • • •MangoCats
in reply to propter_hog [any, any] • • •propter_hog [any, any]
in reply to MangoCats • • •Admetus
in reply to makeitwonderful • • •I also noticed vlc has broken (installed last week apparently)
Using the pacman syntax:
pacman -Q -i -d vlc
showed a conflict with the vlc-plugin (which appeared to be uninstalled already) and no vlc-plugin-#### installed.
The dependencies were fully explained in the list, including the vlc-plugins-all dependency. I'm lazy so that's the dependency I installed on my EndeavourOS.
Bogasse
in reply to makeitwonderful • • •After having a similar feeling as yours I went for NixOS.
My thoughts then : if it breaks I can rollback, and the unstable channel is quite comparable to what arch offers.
Now : I've moved to stable channel, because it's updated enough and allows me to only deal with breaking changes twice a year. Moving to NixOS was time consuming (but fun) because it required to rewrite all my dotfiles and learn something new.
verdigris
in reply to Bogasse • • •