I tested it a bit in a VM to get familiar with pacman and yay. Latest KDE Plasma 6 and more snaps in Ubuntu’s future are the main reasons I want to switch.

As I don’t use a separate home partition, I have an extra drive with BackInTime home dir backups and virtnbdbackup snapshots.

Is EndeavourOS stable enough for everyday use and would restoring home with BackInTime just work (as root user)?

  • LeFantome@programming.dev
    0·
    8 months ago

    I have always hesitated to chime in on this because I do not want to imply that Arch distros do not take knowledge to configure. And while EOS adds some great tools, there are fewer GUI tools out of the box.

    That said:

    • EOS is as easy to setup as any Linux distro
    • For my taste, the defaults are great and take less fiddling to be useable
    • EOS has been the most stable distribution I have used
    • the very few tools that EOS adds on top of Arch are handy and well thought out

    I had WAY more problems on Fedora and RHEL back in the day. SELinux still confuses me.

    I had WAY more stability and packaging problems on Debian, Mint, and Ubuntu. This was aggravated by the fact that I either had to add software that was not managed by the package database or had to add PPAs and third-party repos. Arch and the AUR have completely eliminated that problem. I imagine Flatpaks help on those other distros but I love not HAVING to use Flatpak on Arch ( or EOS ).

    After a couple of years of loving Manjaro, it had a number of major problems. After moving to Arch, I realized that most of the issues I associated with the AUR were just Manjaro too. It is now the only distro I actively advise against.

    I have been using Linux since before kernel 1.0 so there are many more distros. Slackware was stable but requires WAY more config which meant I broke it all the time.

    EndeavourOS has been my main distro for a few years now. It has been rock solid for me. It is the most stable distro I have used.

    On EOS, I make major changes ( like moving to Dracut ) without fear. I have a computer in use for real work that I run updates on almost every day ( including kernel updates ) and I never worry about it being broken. I do not have to run updates. I just like having the latest stuff all the time. I look at version numbers like I am reading the news. Often I look up the release notes after seeing a change just to see what I have now.

    I have had to deal with “keyring” issues which I really wish the system handled better. These are very rare though and only in systems I have let get badly out-of-date ( like laptops that did not get used for a year ).

    I understand the “theory” as to why a rolling release is “not stable”. My experience has not been that at all.

    • Shareni@programming.dev
      0·
      8 months ago

      I had WAY more stability and packaging problems on Debian, Mint, and Ubuntu.

      Mint is the only distro/os I ran for years without it ever freezing, crashing, or failing to boot. I’m expecting to have the exact same experience on MX, and it hasn’t disappointed so far.

      I either had to add software that was not managed by the package database or had to add PPAs and third-party repos. Arch and the AUR have completely eliminated that problem.

      How’s installing packages from random users any better than adding repos made by the devs? At least its got less of a chance to turn your machine into a mining rig…

      I imagine Flatpaks help on those other distros but I love not HAVING to use Flatpak on Arch ( or EOS ).

      I think flatpaks are the main reason why stable distros are growing in popularity. Most people only care about having a few programs up to date, and don’t have FOMO because they’re not bug testing plasma 6. Stable + flatpak is the perfect solution for that scenario.

      Also, Nixpkgs > AUR in every way except ease of use.

      These are very rare though and only in systems I have let get badly out-of-date

      I’ve had the following scenario constantly repeat on my media device: don’t update for a month+ -> update -> fail to boot -> rollback -> try again after a few weeks -> boot

      I understand the “theory” as to why a rolling release is “not stable”. My experience has not been that at all.

      I ran endeavor for like 2 years, with 1-2 years of arch, arco, and garuda before that:

      • the longer I used a single install, the more random bugs would start accumulating. For example on endeavor updates broke silently at some point, and I needed to manually mkinitcpio after a kernel update or it would fail to boot
      • updates would randomly cause me to fail to boot (even when it’s not grub)
      • crashed and froze from time to time

      In the end I was working in a foreign country, and had to weigh whether the first -Syu of the month or just an -S would be more likely to mess up my system. I dropped arch the day after I got back home.

      I’m not saying arch is horribly unstable, and no-one should use it, but people should be realistic about its issues. I’ve noticed that arch fans often think their survivorship bias is the proof that arch is the most stable distro ever created. It’s really not, but if someone is fine with occasionally having to debug their system (as I was for years), endeavor is probably the best option.