Hacker News Reader

Comment by valianteffort | Hacker News Reader

I have never used Fedora, I use Arch on my desktop and really enjoyed it on my macbook. It's kind of sad the Arch developers didn't want to put more effort into supporting alarm.

If Arch is totally dropped by Asahi team it's unlikely I'll continue using linux on my macbook at all. I just have better things to do than manage multiple distros.

View on HN

Having used Arch heavily in the past, “better things to do” is heavily at odds with “using arch”

Doesn't match my experience at all. I love that packages are always up to date. Also, in my experience, having a rolling release cycle leads to significantly fewer issues than having to upgrade everything at once. Using Arch has been a net time saver for me compared to something like Ubuntu where I've wasted a lot of time fighting package upgrade issues and trying to get newer package versions than the distro provides.

In my limited experience, how Arch works out depends on how you're using Linux. If it's your daily driver and you stay on top of updates it's probably going to be fine, but on the other hand if it's a secondary OS on a multiboot system or a VM or something that only gets updated occasionally, chances of things breaking are much higher and something like Fedora might make more sense.

There would definitely be issues with the keyring being outdated which you have to know/search how to work around. And from time to time Arch also requires some manual interventions in the package update process (that are posted on archlinux.org) – you'd have to deal with those all at once if Arch wouldn't have been updated for a very long time. But, other than that, I can't think of other reasons why having a less often used Arch installation would give you trouble.

Then again, I haven't used Arch in such a manner, so you might as well be right.

I use arch and update sporadically and this hasn't really failed me:

    sudo pacman -Sy archlinux-keyring && sudo pacman -Syu

There were two times something went wrong:

- when Arch moved plymouth to their main repos

- when switching from a 1070 to a 4070 I needed to recompile my nvidia drivers

I dug some old computers out of the attic recently. The one that had not been updated since 2021 only took around half an hour to get up to speed, and that was with a metric ton of packages installed.

The other one seemed to have been updated last time in 2015. It didn't even have updated certificates for https, so it couldn't sync the keyring. After trying for a while I just gave up and reinstalled Arch from a USB stick.

> old computers

> not updated since 2021

The computer itself was from 2011, and it was last used in 2021.

good on you (or anyone) having a clean and efficient process on Arch - but really, this is not the same YMMV for everyone with all software stacks. can someone whose entire worklife came to a halt gradually over weeks on Arch, please add here?

These two are not the only two options: the nix model is clearly superior and is not as error prone as each.

nix is so clearly superior and yet nobody uses it. curious!

I think that the learning curve for the nix ecosystem is a lot steeper compared to other distros.

Well, arch is no ubuntu either.

Sometimes the better solution takes time to reach the masses.

Here we talk about a tiny percent of the tiny 3% of desktop users.

> nix is so clearly superior and yet nobody uses it. curious!

If you're going to be snide, you should at least be correct - or are the 6300 users in the main matrix chat room just hanging out for fun?

(sent from my nixos daily driver)

It's not like 6300 is anything but statistical noise compared to the number of Linux users out there.

The number of Arch Linux users is nothing but statistical noise compared to the number of Windows users; would you say that nobody uses Arch?

In that context, if, that is, the comparison involved Windows user share, then yes.

Hell, even in a Linux-only context too. I mean, an exchange like:

- We're shipping this enterprise software in packages compatible with RHEL and Ubuntu, would it be worth our while to also devote resources to specifically support Arch too?

- Nah, nobody uses Arch

While not accurate to the maximum possible precision (something like say 5% of Linux users is not the same as 0%), it would still be quite understandable...

I use Nix on an ARM single-board computer to host a personal Matrix homeserver (and a bunch of bridges), and I absolutely love it. It's invaluable to have a reproducible specification of the whole system, including custom software to build, in a single place.

That being said, for day to day stuff Arch (and Nix standalone) works well enough for me, to be weary of switching my daily driver PC to Nix, out of the fear of dealing with unforeseen issues and maybe encountering less well maintained packages (there's always something broken on Nix unstable, but maybe it's not an issue for more popular stuff). So I'm sticking to Arch for non-servers for now.

Fedora is better at keeping packages up to date than Arch. In particular, Fedora is much quicker to adopt the latest compiler toolchain releases.

I’ve done a lot of distro hopping in the last couple of years, and I always seemed to spend a lot longer managing the environment rather than doing the work (which was an issue when I was freelancing…). Indeed Arch is the only one that ended up with a massive folder in a notion notebook for guides and how tos.

> something like Ubuntu where I've wasted a lot of time fighting package upgrade issues

The irony. You’re aware Arch its policy is to release packages in a broken state and just put it in the release log? They even very publicly state that.

If you want an actually stable rolling release, stick with OpenSUSE.

> You’re aware Arch its policy is to release packages in a broken state and just put it in the release log? They even very publicly state that.

Can you please provide some sources/examples?

As far as I'm concerned, "better things to do" is heavily at odds with "using Linux".

Seriously, I spend more time when using Linux trying to get the computer to work instead of actually doing anything constructive with it.

I think this depends on what you’re doing. Working in software dev and using a lot of containers, anything other than Linux would be a PITA

As I mentioned in my blog post, I also really like Arch. And I definitely understand the benefits to sticking to a single distro on multiple systems.

But as a long term Fedora user who used Arch as a daily driver for a year and a half because of Asahi, and now just switched back to Fedora because of Asahi, I have a solid appreciation for the benefits that Fedora provides over Arch.

In short, I like Fedora more than Arch (and I really like Arch). Of course, everyone is different, but if you start using Fedora Asahi Remix, there's a good chance you'll put Fedora on everything after a few weeks... just like me, Linus Torvalds, and everyone else who joined the dark side ;-)

Just curious, is there something similar to AUR on Fedora? It's a big selling point for me.

The AUR and PKGBUILDs are pretty much just an Arch thing. But on a distro like Fedora, where the default repo is fairly complete and well-groomed (with the odd package hosted in a 3rd party repo), having something like the AUR is a moot point IMO.

Fedora has "Cool Other Package Repositories" or COPR. They're a place for community members to build and publish arbitrary RPM packages. Some are well curated and high quality, others less so.

Thanks for mentioning this! I heard of COPR a while back but never really explored it until this morning after I saw your mention. It definitely could be considered an alternative to AUR/PKGBUILD for Fedora (and it has >24,000 packages already hosted on https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/).

Do I understand it correctly that it also builds the user provided packages? I guess that's similar to [0] but having something (semi?) official is pretty nice.

[0] https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Unofficial_user_repositorie...

vast majority of stuff in the aur has no arm version, how about COPR?

I love Arch, don't even know how many years I used it. But Fedora really is more polished, if only because it's the distribution with more paid contributors, by far. I suggest you give it a go. Also, in practical terms, Fedora has better ARM support.

I used Fedora on my last laptop, really enjoyed it, it does adopt the bleeding edge quickly though. E.g., the default files filesystem was Btrfs, and no X just Wayland.

But it was really stable, I think I only hit one issue that was fixed within a week or so. Guess it's a benefit of Red Hat's "patch upstream first" philosophy.

Shouldn’t this distro require little management?

AFAIK, the main Arch Linux project isn't very interested in supporting the ARM architecture at all. This decision probably has more to do with that than anything else.

Arch is unusual in that it's x86-64 only, so going from 1 to 2 is probably a lot harder than other distros just adding the nth new architecture.

The world is moving away from the AMD64 architecture fast, and Apple Silicon M-series chips are the high end of the current state of the art in ARM chips. If Arch Linux is ever to adopt ARM, working with Asahi would have been a smart move.

Why would you have to "manage" them? Install it, then use it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com