To Arch or not to Arch? Linux nerds, help me beanplate a new distro.

February 10, 2025 10:25 AM

It's starting to look like it's time to nuke my OS from orbit and install a new one. Please help me decide which distro.

Here are my considerations:

• I am 100% over Ubuntu. The main issue for me is snaps, as eloquently discussed here.
• I have been using Linux Mint for the last several years, and I've been generally happy with it, but the fact that it's based on long-term-support versions of Ubuntu means that many of my tools are out of date and need to be installed from PPAs or built from source or whatever. This is why I'm not really considering Debian.
• A hard requirement is that I need a (tree-based) tiling window manager with extensive keyboard support. I have an ultrawide monitor, and using GNOME or Cinnamon or anything else is a nightmare. I have been using Regolith Desktop but it's not tested with Mint, and there are often little quirks that make using it somewhat awkward. What I like about Regolith is that it's not just a window manager: it's a full desktop environment, including a launcher, task bar, notification system, etc.
• I don't mind bling but it's not a requirement. My main requirement on that front is that my tiling window manager has configurable gaps. I've been considering Hyprland, but it also looks like a lot of fuss to set up and configure.
• I'm a software engineer, and I need my dev tools to be easily available and installable. I also need some measure of stability -- I work full time and I can't have my dev machine randomly going down with every update. (So there's some tension between wanting stability and wanting up-to-date software.)
• I need something where I'll be able to solve problems fairly quickly; again, working full time means I can't lose a day struggling to figure out some obscure little problem.
• In theory, I like Arch, but it feels daunting. I'm good at reading documentation and googling the error message, but partitioning my SSD on the command line and setting up a desktop environment from scratch feels, well, daunting. I know that Arch has great documentation and community, and it satisfies my requirement for up-to-date software, but I'm still feeling a bit intimidated.

I've been using Linux for 15 years or so, but this is my first foray outside of Ubuntu-based distros, so any thoughts or suggestions are most welcome. I guess, to boil this down to actual questions, this is what I'm asking:

1. What Linux distribution best fits the criteria above?
2. If the answer to (1) is Arch, any tips on getting started quickly with a minimum of fuss?
3. What tiling window manager fits these criteria?

posted by number9dream to Computers & Internet (16 answers total)

What are your thoughts on flatpak? I use Pop_OS, and for the few items not in the apt repos, I use flathub
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 10:36 AM on February 10 [2 favorites]

(So there's some tension between wanting stability and wanting up-to-date software.)

Would backports on debian be up-to-date enough for the packages you need?
These days AppImage and flatpak (and snap) are all options on debian too for various packages. (On preview, jinx.)

I would largely stick to apt on debian though. I switched to the stable branch after an update once broke X - that was when I realized I shouldn't run anything too bleeding-edge on a computer I need for work. I'd think about what packages you actually need the latest versions of.

If you're looking in the direction of Arch there's also Manjaro. I've never used either so can't speak to what the transition's like, but I recall some comments about both in previous linux threads so hopefully those users will be by to add their takes.
posted by trig at 10:43 AM on February 10 [2 favorites]

I'm not following your logic on disregarding Debian. It is the source distribution for Ubuntu, but it is Ubuntu that has got into a mess with snap, snap isn't originating with Debian and I suspect isn't even available without some manual work.

Debian is a lot more bloated than it used to be but mostly it just works and stays out of your way, it's where I'd start experimenting, without question.
posted by deadwax at 12:10 PM on February 10 [2 favorites]

Pop!_OS is based on Ubuntu, so that may be a deal-breaker for you, even though it doesn't use snap (they have their own little flatpak "store", but I ignore it and get everything I need with apt.) I've never had any problems with it over the past 2.5 years, everything just works.

Whatever you go with, you still might like their desktop environment COSMIC, which is made from scratch to provide a complete desktop environment that centers on great tiling and keyboard integration. It works with many distributions and I think you should check it out if tiling/keyboard control is what you're into.
posted by SaltySalticid at 12:15 PM on February 10

I used Arch for about a year, and I'm glad I did, but in my experience, Arch is the definition of "fuss," which was great for me because 1) it was fun and 2) it taught me a lot about linux and controlling my computer. So, in my experience, I don't recommend it.

Have you looked at Fedora? I've been using it for about two years now and have no plans of ever switching, honestly. It has a ton of flavors (Gnome, KDE Plasma, tiling wms, etc.), and is super stable and reliable. The package manager is DNF, which is easy to use, and Flatpak comes preinstalled. I also hate snaps, but Flatpak is pretty darn good. Updates also come fast

I really can't recommend Fedora enough. Keep in mind, it's not based on Debian or Arch, but Red Hat.
https://fedoraproject.org/
posted by lianove3 at 12:46 PM on February 10 [3 favorites]

I use Linux Mint, which is Ubuntu-ish, but do not use snaps at all, for anything, period. It worked great with i3wm+polybar. I have recently switched back to Cinnamon just for kicks, but remapped my most common i3 keyboard shortcuts for the sake of muscle memory.

But my needs are fairly conventional. Libreoffice, Steam, and a collection of ham radio stuff which tends to be older.
posted by jquinby at 1:03 PM on February 10 [1 favorite]

Fedora is great. It's what I run. I've been on linux since installing slackware via about 22 floppy disks. I have no problem configuring things, rebuilding kernels, digging deep etc, but I'm old now, and have no damn time to mess with arch, which doesn't even have a guided installer (like you literally will be on the console typing commands to get it installed!). So I run fedora, which is stable and up to date.

If you want the bleeding edge that you get with Arch, on top of a distro that takes care of the basics so you don't have to bother, run Fedora, or Ubuntu (or Pop_OS or whatever, but note that Pop_OS is seriously out of date since they've put all their resources in the COSMIC desktop), and then set up a nix environment for your user (more here). This way you can grab nix packages on demand, roll things back if they're wrong, etc., without touching your actually installed OS. This is even more straightforward than going all in with NixOS, since you really have to learn very little besides how to install nix packages.
posted by dis_integration at 1:42 PM on February 10 [1 favorite]

Arch seems almost seamless for me, ahd has, for a decade or so. There has been very occasionally a glitch that stops the "pacman" update too but it's usually a matter of checking the arch wiki or a bit of googling. I had a thinkpad that stayed in a box for a year and a half that updated fine. Use the pacman package manager for everything, there are community packages installed with alternative package managers, I use "yay" which uses pacman config files. So, for example, never ever never use pip for python. Updating weekly and you have as up to date system as imaginable.

The window manager may be the gotcha, I'm fine with gnome, which I basically don't hate but have never gone on a serious wm survey/trial. There is a very responsive community so consider a query in /r/arch. And it's very likely that every open source window manager is available in arch.

I actually am pretty amazed at how smooth arch is, there is an amazingly responsible community of package manager folks, that while not perfect, seem like it for years at a stretch.
posted by sammyo at 5:36 PM on February 10 [1 favorite]

I find Debian's testing distribution is more than stable enough while offering rather more modern versions of software than Debian stable.

I did have an Arch phase a while back, and it might have been bad luck but I had several instances where I rendered my machine near unusable after upgrading and was only saved by having other devices I could use to find the information to fix it... always checking for warnings before upgrading is the advice. Having said that, the initial install was not hard given very excellent instructions and it's not something you do again and again.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 11:50 PM on February 10 [1 favorite]

Chris Titus went through a bunch of distributions and created a tier list (YT) about a year ago. He seems to have some strong opinions (not sure if he's correct) but the video may give you some ideas.

TLDW (from video comments):

Supreme
00:11 Debian / Arch

Amazing for New Users
15:00 Kubuntu
16:10 Linux Mint
23:45 Zorin
24:30 Nobara

Best for Business
02:20 Alma Rocky Oracle
04:20 Alpine Linux
17:35 NixOS
21:30 SUSE and OpenSUSE

Creative and Unique
07:30 Artix
08:05 Clear Linux
11:55 Gentoo
20:20 Slackware
20:55 Solus
22:20 Tails and Qubes
23:10 Void Linux

Devil
02:31 RHEL Centos and Fedora
03:30 Ubuntu

Lightweight
04:55 AntiX
16:45 Lubuntu
18:17 Peppermint
19:45 Puppy Linux
23:30 TinyCore

Pointless
05:20 Arco Linux
06:25 Manjaro
09:15 Deepin
09:50 KDE Neon
10:15 Elementary OS
11:20 Endeavor and Garuda
11:37 Feren OS
12:55 Kali Linux
14:00 Parrot
17:10 MX Linux
17:50 PCLinuxOS
18:30 PopOS
posted by Depressed Obese Nightmare Man at 2:09 AM on February 11 [2 favorites]

I use Debian Testing with aptitude safe-upgrade and add flatpaks for stuff that's newer than the rolling-release of this flavour of Debian.

i3 will get you hierarchical tree tiling.
posted by k3ninho at 3:40 AM on February 11 [1 favorite]

BTW you probably don't need to make all these decisions at the same time (you probably know that but just in case). For example if you try out Debian, you can keep running regolith.

And likewise you could stick with your current Mint install for a little longer to comfortably try out different WMs and DEs before switching.

If you like Mint in general you can also stick with it, or with Mint's Debian-based releases, and use Debian backports or third-party things like flatpaks, AppImage, nix, or sometimes the software's own .deb package releases for whatever needs to be the latest version possible. If you make a list of the specific packages you'd want to do that with, you can check what options exist for each. And you could try that out on your current system to see how you feel about it and let that inform your next decisions.
posted by trig at 5:02 AM on February 11 [1 favorite]

Arch is great if you want your OS to be a full-time job. I understand that you're steering away from Debian-derivatives, so perhaps Alpine might be a good fit. It's what I went to after a long professional career with Ubuntu.

It's crunchy, but not in a useless-without-constant-polishing way like arch. It's widely-used in production container images everywhere. It's got a really up-to-date package system that Just Works.
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 6:04 AM on February 11 [2 favorites]

Bunsenlabs FKA Crunchbang is a really small Debian derivative that uses the Openbox window manager. There's just enough GUI and you do most things at the command line. When I used it the install process was to stand up Debian netinst AKA server and then run a shell script. The community was really nice and probably still is.

I want to push back on the idea of Debian being bloated. A default install is nothing like Ubuntu, and a netinst with the boxes unchecked is not much bigger than Alpine. I totally get why you don't like snaps, they're an abomination, but if you're running hardware from the 2010s or later even Ubuntu is pretty performant.
posted by technodelic at 7:31 AM on February 12

In theory, I like Arch, but it feels daunting.

Arch is amazing once running: rolling distribution, lightweight, you can build it up in any way you see fit, fantastic repo of packages, leading edge, all of it. But installing Arch from bootstrap/scratch is pretty awful.

However, the EndeavourOS is Arch but it makes installation light years simpler. I've had my last 3 machines on Endeavour and I can 100% recommend it.

Somehow Endeavour in the "pointless" list posted above. I'm dismissing the list as a pointless list because of it.
posted by mcstayinskool at 12:57 PM on February 12

I've been a professional sysadmin for 30ish years. Most of those years have been very Linux-centric, with a ton of BSD and SunOS/Solaris in the mix. I use Arch quite a bit, but not professionally.

I love Arch, and I run it for a number of my personal projects when I'm not using a BSD. The rolling release, the lack of "if you install this, you want a default config and you want to start it" philosophy, and the sheer tuneability of anything that you build from AUR. It shares a lot of philosophy with FreeBSD, and I think that's great... for people who have a pretty deep understanding of Linux/Unix, and know what they want. Manjaro is a little more user-friendly at install-time, if that's important to you, but once installed, it's clearly arch and can be maintained with pacman and yay and a text editor just as easily as with the manjaro native tools.

I don't find that configuring it or keeping it running is a full-time job, or even particularly difficult. It actually feels pretty sane and well-organized to me. That may be experience talking, though. (To use your example, "partitioning my SSD on the command line" is not remotely daunting, because it is by far my preferred method, and the one I've been using since forever)

I moved to Arch from gentoo, which I also liked very much, but is much more finicky (and if you're complaining about the process of bootstrapping Arch, then whooo boy.) So, in a way, Arch is less complex than where I came from. (This is a common pattern among ex-gentoo admins, incidentally.)

Professionally, outside of containers I generally run Debian (+backports, usually; pkgsrc sometimes) or OpenBSD, depending on what we're doing with it. For a production system that has a team of people who will need to maintain it, a more stable, boring system that more admins are familiar with is a better choice. But for the 1u that I keep in the colo for my own purposes... that's not what I'm looking for.

Put your /home directory on a different drive or partition and give arch a try, and it will probably get less daunting. If you hate it, keep your home directory around and install something else, and you'll probably just lose some time.
posted by toxic at 9:32 PM on February 12 [2 favorites]