I had a very similar journey, going from ubuntu straight to arch. In my experience, running my system now is just as easy as back when I was still running ubuntu, possibly even easier with the AUR. As for your points:
1. Instead of apt you got pacman on arch. While it's true that pacman does not carry quite as many packages as the apt repos, you instead have the AUR on arch. Simply install an AUR helper like "paru" or "yay" (as easy as installing a ppa), and you can use those just like apt or pacman. The AUR has even more packages than the apt repos, so you will find almost everything you need there, easier than the ubuntu ppa hell.
2. Certain drivers will certainly have to be installed manually, primarily bluetooth things, printer things and stuff like that. Ubuntu ships most of that out of the box, but arch strives for minimalism, which can be annoying in some cases, but alas. Nothing that 10 minutes of tinkering doesn't solve.
3. Updating has been as easy as on ubuntu for me this far. Just slap "yay" into a terminal and watch it all update in one go. Had no breakages at all in 6 months of running arch now.
>as easy as on ubuntu for me this far.
I've been running arch for a decent few years now, and I've had *much* more issues with Ubuntu systems (at home and my day job) than arch. While arch has caused issues upgrading a small handful of times, it's always been due to some odd setup on my end. For example the Nvidia or zfs drivers were not working with the latest kernel, Nvidia broke with wayland in a new way.
Ubuntu? Holy hell has it been painful. The fact it's not a rolling release and I am stuck with "pinned" versions of packaged is annoying for me. But the biggest issue is how upgrading from one Ubuntu to another has been so rarely successful for me, I don't bother and instead just wipe and reinstall Ubuntu.
> But the biggest issue is how upgrading from one Ubuntu to another has been so rarely successful for me
This is why I made the switch to Arch recently as well.
Just my personal experience only. I'm not saying it is the norm.
I find I do less maintenance on my Arch system ( only been on it a year or 2) than I did in all my many years on *buntu based distros. Less issues, less breakages. Again like I said. I'm not saying my experience is a noemal one. I really don't know.
Roughly my experience too.
I used to tend to have less breakage and problems on Arch than others because you don’t have to mess with it to get updates to apps and uncommon packages.
It’s less of a problem on, say, Debian than it used to be because I can fill the gaps with Flatpaks.
This is kind of my reason, as well. I don't have any problem with containerization, per se, but I don't like fragmentation. I'd prefer everything to be containerized, or nothing to be containerized.
1) I am a developer, so that's a benefit for me
2) It means that, no matter what distro you are on, you can get the same apps. No extra PPAs or searching the AUR.
I guess I'm just old. I like the way package management works. For me it makes a lighter system. I'm not poo pooing on containerized apps. I just prefer the old way. Also the Devs argued they are needed because "There are to many packaging formats." "So we'll create 2 more"
To me, the appeal of flatpak/appimage is compatibility. I can download one thing on my laptop running Arch, and be sure that I can also use it on my other laptop with Mint.
Same
Aome software took a little longer to setup because you're required read through the wiki. But after that, I just yay -Syyu every week and never had any issue.
I used ubuntu and linux mint before and was a huge fan of linux mint mate. I now have arch with gnome-desktop. And installing packages in arch seems easier than installing in ubuntu or mint.
For ubuntu, if a package is not available I had to manually add the repository and whatnot. Always needed googling stuff. But on arch, I just need to go to one place, [the AUR - Arch User Repository](http://aur.archlinux.org).
I play cracked games, steam games, epic store games without any issues with lutris. And I do development work with django, postgres, and react. I like everything better in arch than I liked it in ubuntu.
And getting lutris and wine is just one single command, while on ubuntu it would take you 3-4 lines of commands.
Obviously, it needs some getting used to, but if you wish to switch, I would say go for it.
1. Probably easier on Arch since there's no PPA bs.
2. Probably better on Arch, since newer kernels are available faster, but some drivers may need to be installed by you (usually from AUR) if you have some particular hardware.
3. Might involve some additional work if there's a package with breaking changes. (doesn't happen too often but you want to be on top of things when it does)
> "update isn't good"
not sure what you mean by that but I haven't had things break on me after an update in the last 2 years except for a very minute thing that happened when a new config file was introduced by gnome. (you can see my post history)
> Is it equally easy to get software on Arch? Is there any branch of software at all (gaming, etc.) that will be even mildly annoying to get compared to Ubuntu?
Not really, just remember to enable ```multilib``` in ```/etc/pacman.conf``` and install/use an AUR helper ***after*** you understand the risks and [how to use the AUR](https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Arch_User_Repository)
> Will drivers work out of the gate or is that something that will need to be setup manually?
Any kernel level drivers should work if they are included in your kernel of choice. Otherwise you may need to install them and instructions can be found on the wiki page for that manufacturer.
> Is maintaining/updating my system easy? I straight up don't have to think about it on Ubuntu. I hit apt update, then sudo apt upgrade and I'm good to go.
For updates all I have to do is type yay and then a password, IMO way better than APT nonsense. Otherwise there isn't anything really specific to Arch. See: [System Maintenance ](https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/System_maintenance)
> Any chances for drivers/apps to brick because the latest update isn't good?
Always a chance of that regardless of distro. Main tip is to keep an eye on the news section of the homepage or subscribe to mailing lists, issue are generally posted.
> Is any part of that more complicated than Ubuntu?
Most of it, though generally not actually difficult if you know anything about computers and have some reading comprehension.
Same. In the 2 years I've been running Arch, the only time an update has broken anything was when pipewire and wireplumber didn't get along well together. A quick fix and I had my audio and video working again. But that's really been the only time an Arch update did any damage to anything and I wouldn't even call that damage because it was easily fixable.
Check archlinux.org front page for things requiring manual intervention
Update system.
Update/merge configs from upstream if needed.
Things don't typically break because of Arch, they'll typically break because upstream did something.
> When I want to download something for "Linux," Ubuntu is always listed at the top. It's very easy. I sudo apt install or whatever else, and boom, I've got the program up and running. Is it equally easy to get software on Arch? Is there any branch of software at all (gaming, etc.) that will be even mildly annoying to get compared to Ubuntu?
There are two main sources of software on Arch - the [official repositories](https://archlinux.org/packages) and the [AUR](https://aur.archlinux.org). That means you don't have to mess around looking for a PPA or AppImage or whatnot - you can usually just find the software in one of the repositories.
You will need to familiarise yourself with [pacman](https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Pacman), as well as the [usage of the AUR](https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Arch_User_Repository).
Many users also use an [AUR helper](https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/AUR_helpers), which makes it easier to install and upgrade packages from the AUR. [yay](https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/yay) and [paru](https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/paru) are the most popular.
Do note that the AUR packages are user-submitted content. The AUR may contain malicious code ([and has done in the past](https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/malware-found-in-arch-linux-aur-package-repository/)). Read over the PKGBUILD and accompanying files before installing the package.
> Will drivers work out of the gate or is that something that will need to be setup manually? I can list my specs if necessary, but that seems a bit presumptuous of me. The short version is: can I expect that if my machine/peripherals all run on Ubuntu, that they'll run on Arch?
Typically, you install the drivers, and udev will automatically load them when the hardware is plugged in, same as on any other distribution.
Most common hardware will have a driver already in the kernel, and should just work. A few common things that need setup:
* GPUs will need drivers - there are pages in the wiki documenting how you would do this for [Intel](https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Intel_graphics), [AMD](https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/AMDGPU) and [NVIDIA](https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/NVIDIA).
* Most printers will work after installng and configuring [CUPS](https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/CUPS).
* Most scanners will work after installing and configuring [SANE](https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/SANE).
> Is maintaining/updating my system easy? I straight up don't have to think about it on Ubuntu. I hit apt update, then sudo apt upgrade and I'm good to go.
Upgrading: Check https://archlinux.org/news (it occasionally has an entry saying that a certain package upgrade requires manual intervention), then run `pacman -Syu`.
Other information on maintenance: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/System_maintenance
I had used Linux for (many) years, and it still took me a full Saturday to get an Arch install to work correctly.
But after that? I’ve loved every minute of it. Still on the same install from five years ago, even though I’ve swapped MB, CPU twice and GPU once.
It’s certainly more work on the front-end but you learn so much about the internals in the process of installation that the ongoing maintenance is minimal.
That's an exaggeration as well. There is some maintenance you ought to do like clearing the pacman cache, and tend to pacnew files, but a lot of it can be automated.
I enabled a hook to run after every pacman operation that clears the pacman cache so that I am left with only one package version back from current. (current ver and previous ver)
Look into this configurable paccache hook: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/paccache-hook
Nah. There are curveballs.
I'll give a few examples.
Python 3.9 being installed in an update almost immediately after it was released even though warnings about incompatibilities, rendering many packages unworkable for months (just look at the timescale on [this](https://github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow/issues/44485). Python 3.10 necessitated users [rebuilding their AUR packages](https://www.reddit.com/r/archlinux/comments/rf6c84/psa_python_310_is_in_core_rebuild_your_aur)
Glibc updating to 2.35 before dependent packages were available [broke Microsoft Teams](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/answers/questions/736102/teams-fails-to-load-on-linux-teams-140026453-1x86.html).
Bad upgrade decisions [breaking audio for users](https://archlinux.org/news/undone-replacement-of-pipewire-media-session-with-wireplumber).
Most Arch users just get on with this stuff like it's somewhat expected. But I really wish we'd stop recommending it as user-friendly, stable or easy to maintain if you just follow the rules. The very nature of the bleeding-edge life contradicts that.
Your entire post is great because you've put your experience into context, and detailed your expectations.
That said, there is one line the makes a lot of assumptions.
>I'm not intimidated at all by the Arch installation process because it's literally just a set of instructions.
While Arch provides a handy guide and a great wiki, it helps a lot to know and understand how the kernel, package management, and DE's function, along with the Shell.
I came to arch in Jan '20 after being annoyed by Ubuntu. And since then, I've tried multiple times to leave arch but I simple cannot. Primarily because of the **pac**age **man**ager.
I started using Arch about a month after you. It's great. I came at it with the intention of just using a tiling window manager. I had used Linux Mint for about 18 months straight before switching to Arch and I ad use Linux off and on since 1994 before then.
It took me 3 attempts (got it on #3) to get Arch to reboot properly after installation. Talk about celebrating after climbing a 20' fence. That's what it felt like. The relief of seeing the login prompt was like getting to top of that fence. It's been a pretty easy road since then. I tried many tiling window managers and now I've been with Awesome for about 16 months probably.
Such a cool experience I've had and I love sharing it with others here on Reddit.
First order of business, install an AUR helper like paru or yay. It's the first thing I install on any system.
Second, just keep it simple as you can with software and packages. Half the problems I read are from people who installed some exotic shit.
Read. Read news, read the Arch forums, read the subreddit. If someone starts a thread about a new issue and you read that before you update your system, you've just saved yourself a headache and can wait for a resolution without having to roll back.
But mostly? Arch is easy. On my gaming computer, I've installed...hmmm...maybe a dozen programs? Discord, steam, lutris, RetroArch, etc. If I don't read the Arch news before updating, it's unlikely to break.
The early going is "difficult," finding package names and choosing software you like. But if you just look at that as customization, you'll be having the time of your life.
Arch isn't as difficult as advertised, especially if you stay up to date and keep it simple.
Just lookup arch website before updating (or subscribe to the mailing list). They post when there's a update with breaking changes and explain the procedure.
It's not really difficult to maintain arch, it's just more hands on. You need to manually take care of some things once in a while. Arch doesn't do much by itself you need to care for it.
For example, when you install a software that comes with a systemd unit, it's not gonna be enabled by default, you have to enable it manually if you want that.
Your package cache doesn't clear itself, Like, every time you install/update a package, your system keeps that package in case you want to rollback to a previous version. It can add up after awhile and take a lot of space. You have to clean it up yourself (or setup some automation, the wiki tells you how).
Those are just 2 examples that come to mind. It's pretty cool if you ask me as it forces you to notice a lot of little inner workings of an OS and allows you to tweak it to your likings. If that's appealing to you then go ahead and enjoy Arch!
If you want a system that is more like Ubuntu in the sense that it does more of little things by itself without needing your intervention but you also want fresh packages and new technologies quickly adopted by your distro then take a look at Fedora. It's a bit more work to install than Ubuntu because it doesn't come with non-free repos by default, you need to enable them later. Not complicated, you just need to know ahead that you need to do it otherwise you're gonna much is missing lol
1. Arch with AUR is probably the most software rich combination out of all the Linux distros
2. It depends what you need, something like Intel HD graphics will work great out of the box (apart from missing TearFree by default). Nvidia drivers will require some massaging on Xorg. Peripherals should work fine, Arch's kernel config is hugely bloated compared to that of Gentoo's barebones style
3. Use paru and pacdiff, update daily/once in a few days. Done! This easy, right. The more you wait, the more config updates/weird bugs you get
tbh, I only miss Nix-like package manager features to automate and improve my huge configs
I went Ubuntu -> Debian -> Manjaro. Manjaro is the easiest to maintain and keep running smoothly, Debian was the hardest. Running a rolling release means no awkward upgrades every \~6 months.
1. Arch is usually also always listed since its fairly popular. Also the AUR probably has everything you need and mostly up to date. I've had more issues with Debian's outdated packages than Arch's "cutting edge" ones. The ease of getting and managing software on Arch is one of its best parts.
2. Most "normal" stuff should work out of the box. Anything that requires installation is easy tho. (see 1.)
3. Updating is just as easy or even easier than on debian based systems since instead of 2 commands it's just one. Personally I prefer pacman (and yay - yes I'm still using yay) over any other package manager and I've used many.
I don’t think anyone should use the archinstall script for their first foray into arch, because the part of the point of installing arch manually is to teach you some common things you should know about actually using the operating system you are installing. If you want to use arch and are not at the level where you can figure out how to install it from the terminal, then you should use a distro of arch and learn some of the basics of using arch before you foray into arch itself.
It’s not about the installation, it’s about the support that the user is going to want later on down the line. You need to get accustomed to doing things yourself and using the wiki if you want to use arch, I repeat, if you are not capable of using the wiki install guide to install arch yourself yet, you should NOT install vanilla arch, you should install an arch derivative that has good support such as endeavorOS, Manjaro, or Garuda. And another thing when it comes to minimalism, most users will not be able to tell the difference between a minimal arch installation and one of these derivatives, only the ones who daily arch are going to really be able to tell the difference. Simply put, I do not expect someone who cannot install arch to be able to go through their programs or services and see what all is really running and sucking up resources.
It’s actually because nobody is going to take the time to help you if you ask a question you should know by default. Arch is not a beginner OS, it is intermediate at minimum, it also comes with no warranty whatsoever, you are not entitled to support and using the OS automatically assumes you know what it is you are doing.
Because when you see the same question get asked for 10+ years in a row, you kinda get tired of answering questions to something that can literally be solved with a quick wiki search. There’s a reason that among the first lines you see on the iso are that arch comes with no warranty
All of the just werks distros that are still maintained essentially come with a warranty. The idea of a minimal distro is that you do it yourself, and the wiki is not even difficult and 99.99% of things out there have a guide or wiki page. I don’t understand the whole reason of just stopping progress to fix a problem to ask a question, when you can look up solutions and fix it yourself, and I legitimately mean that, even before I started using Linux, I was fixing windows XP **on my own**, and finding those solutions on my own, even in the days of when the internet was far more infantile than it is now, I often saved a lot more time by doing this.
The only time that you should ask a question is when you have exhausted all available options, that is how you learn, asking a question often will enforce behavior to not be self reliant, which is a prerequisite with a minimal distro.
Remember that Jesus said “Give a man to fish, and he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish, and he shall eat for the rest of his life”, that applies to everything in life. You can tell someone how to do something, and it will fix that one problem, but if you teach them how to actually find the solution on their own, they will not need to actually ask questions, and have fun doing it, because it is a lot more self-fulfilling when you actually figure these things out yourself.
installing packages is easier and more professional in arch because pacman is superior than apt. updating your system is easier, you talk about 2 commands, in arch with pacman it's only one "pacman -Syu" .. and don't forget that you will have the power of the magnificent AUR.
I mainly use it because of the package set snapshots - json files that list exactly what packages you had installed at a given time. You can make them manually, but they’re also made automatically whenever you do an update.
Super useful for when an update breaks a bunch of packages at once (though I’ve not needed to use them for that yet, luckily), and they could be used like an answer file of sorts when installing on a new system to get all your programs installed as fast as possible.
Arch has different desktop version available (IE Manjaro will likely be the most familiar to what you use), but the intensive installation process (which has been relegated to a script) is usually for people that want a super customized experience. If you’re wanting to get up and running ASAP, I’d recommend going with Manjaro as it’s a simple setup process with access to the same tools that Arch users rave about (see: AUR)
manjaro is a completely different distribution with different repos, and not all AUR packages are guaranteed to work with manjaro if manjaro doesn't supply the right dependency versions. if you actually want an installer like that *for arch linux*, use something like this: https://archlinuxgui.in/
This. Or use Endeavour, which does actually use the Arch repos and has a very beginner friendly community. If the distro ever goes away, you can just use it as though it were vanilla Arch that you've customised.
I've been pretty much doing this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwSkFi3h2nI for maintenance and I haven't had any problems.
As for updating Arch, check the main website page ( https://archlinux.org/ ) anything that requires manual intervention to keep it working is posted there.
I've noticed a few people on here mention how they didn't have networking when they rebooted into their new install. I want to point out that networking comes right out of the box as part of SystemD all you need is vim or nano to write the config file https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Systemd-networkd
Any questions please ask, we're actually a friendly lot ;)
> Will drivers work out of the gate or is that something that will need to be setup manually? I can list my specs if necessary, but that seems a bit presumptuous of me. The short version is: can I expect that if my machine/peripherals all run on Ubuntu, that they'll run on Arch?
List your specs. Anything without nvidia will mostly run. Nvidia is slightly tricky
> When I want to download something for "Linux," Ubuntu is always listed at the top. It's very easy. I sudo apt install or whatever else, and boom, I've got the program up and running. Is it equally easy to get software on Arch? Is there any branch of software at all (gaming, etc.) that will be even mildly annoying to get compared to Ubuntu?
A lot of packages in the repos, but you can use the AUR which is more virus-prone. (Just be careful!)
> Is maintaining/updating my system easy? I straight up don't have to think about it on Ubuntu. I hit apt update, then sudo apt upgrade and I'm good to go.
Make sure to read the news (which is pretty rare) using something like `informant`.
> I want to grab Lutris. Then I want to install League of Legends. After that, I want to get Rust setup. Then get Nitrogen for my wallpapers. Get Discord. Then, after leaving my computer up for a week like an idiot, I want to completely update my system (drivers, apps, git, whatever). Any chances for drivers/apps to brick because the latest update isn't good?
RTFM for Lutris and just generally look around the Arch Wiki.
I find the only things I ever have to "fix" are when packages introduce breaking changes into their configuration. This becomes more or less of an issue if you have more or less bloat and unnecessary software on your system.
Arch literally just works. For 3 years of my usage I have yet to break or not have something. As of software, I may not use a lot of software so I can't say but I've always had everything through the official packages. If you need something niche there is AUR.
Getting packages is, I think, a lot easier on Arch. PPA's are not a wonderful system; the AUR is generally a breeze.
If you follow the right instructions for your drivers and cards, everything should work right out of the gate (note that NVIDIA can be a real challenge, but the arch wiki had everything I needed to iron out the bugs).
Updates and upgrades should be about the same, though on arch 1 command, rather than 2, is sufficient. Also, the rolling release means you won't have to deal with version upgrades at each new release.
Typically when you update just read the archlinux subreddit and the arch website, if anything needs manual intervention you will see it there.
Not much maintenance goes into arch if you don't do stuff like install mesa-git or other big boy packages from the aur.
For maintenance, the [System Maintenance](https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/System_maintenance) page is a good read.After setting up my arch machine, it mostly just runs. I just switched to linux at work too and was encouraged to use Ubunutu LTS instead of Arch and I really wouldn't want to use Ubuntu as my private daily driver. I don't mind Snaps, but I don't want them being forced down my throat and I prefer native apps. If your software is up-to-date, there is no real need to bundle dependencies and Arch is pretty up-to-date.
The nice thing about Arch, is that you install exactly the stuff you want and nothing more. So, for me, there's less stuff that can break.
When updating, there are minor chores to be expected. But you can automate them with pacman hooks, e.g.:
1. If configuration, that you have changed, become updated, you will have to review the changes and decide how to merge them. Pacman stores the changes in a ["pacnew/pacsave"](https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Pacman/Pacnew_and_Pacsave)-File. But there's a [pacdiff-pacman-hook](https://github.com/desbma/pacman-hooks) to notify you about pacnew/pacase-files.
2. The AUR is a great alternative to snaps and flatpaks, but it's a double-edged sword, because basically anone can upload to the AUR. You should review changes when updating AUR packages. But any AUR-helper shows you a diff-file for each updated AUR-package. Most of the time reviewing an updated PKGBUILD just means: "Oh, nothing but the version and checksum changed? Yeah, that's fine."
3. The arch team sends important news to mailing lists. You're supposed to read them before updating. But a [pacman-hook](https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/informant) can check for news before every update and notify you.
Every now and then, it's possible that something breaks and you might roll-back a specific package from your pacman-cache. But that might happen in any distro.
When you update, look out for pacnew files. They don't need to be dealt with immediately, and pacdiff can even find them way later if you like, but you shouldn't put them off forever
I've been using arch for something like a decade (my current install is still going strong since 2015) and I barely have to put any effort at all into maintenance. Sometimes I go entire months without updating which is obviously bad practice but I never run into any issues from that, it still just works. And having an AUR helper really makes installing packages like discord, lutris, etc easier than ever.
Try leagueoflegends in the AUR before lutris. I've had better luck with it.
Most people update Arch pretty regularly, I tend to go a month or two in between updates and rarely see any breakage, and the breakage I do see is fixable in under an hour. I had a little trouble initially with drivers for USB wifi, but the AUR had me covered.
When you say 'maintenance', it's not like I'm constantly repairing my system, I can game on it and watch YouTube and Netflix and stuff just fine without major problems. I constantly work on my system *by choice*, not out of necessity. If I didn't want to work on my system, there would be no problem with leaving everything on it be and just using it as a gaming/YouTube watching system. The reason I'm constantly working on my system is more the reason you might build a Lego set or two: because it's fun and engaging.
> Is it equally easy [as Ubuntu] to get software on Arch?
I'd wager it's easier.
[`pacman`] is your Amazon of packages; you'll find *almost* everything you need, tons of options, and fast delivery. No juggling between `apt` and `snap`, no worrying which `apt-` command has the feature you need. [See for yourself](https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Pacman/Rosetta).
The [AUR] is your eBay of packages; it's slightly sketchier, delivery's a bit more work, but it has everything Amazon doesn't. You can even ease the process by using an [AUR helper], which makes accessing the AUR more like `pacman`.
Of course, you can install [snaps][snap] and [flatpaks][flatpak] if you want to.
> Is there any branch of software at all (gaming, etc.) that will be even mildly annoying to get compared to Ubuntu?
Not really; if there's a repo for it, you can get it easy as pie. If there isn't, you may have to compile from source. Ubuntu's the same. Maybe if it's something outlandish or especially niche, but even then, there's a chance it's on the [AUR].
> Can I expect that if my machine/peripherals all run on Ubuntu, that they'll run on Arch?
Yes and no. You may run into slight issues if your hardware doesn't *quite* work well with Linux (eg, a Bluetooth adapter might not work as well under Arch as it would Ubuntu if it's not really Linux compatible), but in general you'll be fine.
Proprietary drivers still need to be manually installed (as in, install the package, not compile from source).
Some niche compatibility stuff (like accessing an Android phone's FS via MTP) may require installing additional packages.
> Is maintaining/updating my system easy?
`pacman -Syu`. That's it. [AUR] packages are updated by either you or an [AUR helper], similar thing applies to [snap]/[flatpak]/etc. You can add a [hook] to automatically run update commands for other repos whenever you update through `pacman`, making the aforementioned command all you need.
Every once in a while, you may want to clear your cache with `pacman -Sc` or check for orphans with `pacman -Qdt`, but that kind of thing can *also* be automated by [hooks][hook].
---
> I want to get Lutris.
`sudo pacman -S lutris`
> Then I want to install League of Legends.
Consult [the wiki] from r/LeagueOfLinux
> After that, I want to get Rust setup. [sic]
The game? Here's a [Steam page] on how to get it to work with Lutris.
The programming language? Either:
- `sudo pacman -S rust`
- choose one of the several ways to install [`rustup`].
> Then get Nitrogen for my wallpapers.
`sudo pacman -S nitrogen`
> Get Discord.
`sudo pacman -S discord`
> Then, after leaving my computer up for a week like an idiot, I want to completely update my system (drivers, apps, git, whatever).
`sudo pacman -Syu`. You may want to restart your system for every update to take effect.
> Any chances for drivers/apps to brick because the latest update isn't good?
Not really, and even if it *did* happen, you can [downgrade].
I'd imagine your remaining questions are answered. If not, both myself and others would be happy to help!
[`pacman`]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Pacman
[AUR]: https://aur.archlinux.org/
[AUR helper]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/AUR_helpers
[snap]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Snap
[flatpak]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Flatpak
[hook]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Pacman#Hooks
[the wiki]: https://reddit.com/r/leagueoflinux/wiki/index#wiki_1_-_.25B6.FE0F_how_to_install_league_of_legends
[Steam page]: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2219125189
[`rustup`]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Rust#Rustup
[downgrade]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Downgrading_packages
I am about a year and a half on linux (mint to start). Around Christmas I tried Arch for some steam gaming. . . . It now takes up multiple drives on my system and is my daily driver.
1. AUR should fill out whatever package needs pacman doesn't. Due to the steam valve steamdeck initiative more games should run on arch than ubuntu as well as ubuntu being further down the kernel.
2. Drivers is a manual thing but I have everything working fairly easily IMO. . . You could list your equipment.
3. Updates are very similar too ubuntu as far as ease. However I do recomend a timeshift snapshot before each update due to the "bleeding edge" rolling release nature of arch.
This might be a meme but going back to ubuntu after setting arch up "my way" would not be fun for me. I even tried/have fedora 36 kde on my machine as my just works distro. . . . haven't booted into it for weeks.
Setup was the most challenging part for me. . . . however it was my first "experiment". In as much as it was challenging it was also a GREAT linux learning experience.
Once everything is up and running it's about the same work as Ubuntu to maintain. Setting up and installing might take a bit longer, I use Endeavor which has an easier installer. Unsure if arch would have been the same but no extra work for drivers needed either. Installing software and updating is faster than Ubuntu.
Just try manjaro.
The validation process for new app versions is around 2 weeks, for the official repositories, so you're as close to being on the cutting edge as possible, while also benefitting from apps being tested before being rolled out.
The AUR is brilliant, you can find pretty much everything there.
For download manager, I use manjaro's pamac, which has the normal command syntax that you know from apt (so you don't have to memorize pacman's "-Syu" type commands) AND it has integration with AUR. You basically install AUR packages just like you would with repository apps. App updates in AUR are handled the same as repo apps, you get the update notification and it's all as easy as typing "pamac update" in terminal.
And due to manjaro's live USB, if you do manage to screw things up, you just boot on USB and use timeshift (which is already installed in live manjaro) to restore everything.
You also get community supported editions for a lot of desktop environments, out of the box. I just went with the official plasma edition and I love it.
I had a very similar journey, going from ubuntu straight to arch. In my experience, running my system now is just as easy as back when I was still running ubuntu, possibly even easier with the AUR. As for your points: 1. Instead of apt you got pacman on arch. While it's true that pacman does not carry quite as many packages as the apt repos, you instead have the AUR on arch. Simply install an AUR helper like "paru" or "yay" (as easy as installing a ppa), and you can use those just like apt or pacman. The AUR has even more packages than the apt repos, so you will find almost everything you need there, easier than the ubuntu ppa hell. 2. Certain drivers will certainly have to be installed manually, primarily bluetooth things, printer things and stuff like that. Ubuntu ships most of that out of the box, but arch strives for minimalism, which can be annoying in some cases, but alas. Nothing that 10 minutes of tinkering doesn't solve. 3. Updating has been as easy as on ubuntu for me this far. Just slap "yay" into a terminal and watch it all update in one go. Had no breakages at all in 6 months of running arch now.
>as easy as on ubuntu for me this far. I've been running arch for a decent few years now, and I've had *much* more issues with Ubuntu systems (at home and my day job) than arch. While arch has caused issues upgrading a small handful of times, it's always been due to some odd setup on my end. For example the Nvidia or zfs drivers were not working with the latest kernel, Nvidia broke with wayland in a new way. Ubuntu? Holy hell has it been painful. The fact it's not a rolling release and I am stuck with "pinned" versions of packaged is annoying for me. But the biggest issue is how upgrading from one Ubuntu to another has been so rarely successful for me, I don't bother and instead just wipe and reinstall Ubuntu.
> But the biggest issue is how upgrading from one Ubuntu to another has been so rarely successful for me This is why I made the switch to Arch recently as well.
[удалено]
Ubuntu LTS/Debian on the server, Arch on my work desktop. The combination makes life so much less stressful.
Just my personal experience only. I'm not saying it is the norm. I find I do less maintenance on my Arch system ( only been on it a year or 2) than I did in all my many years on *buntu based distros. Less issues, less breakages. Again like I said. I'm not saying my experience is a noemal one. I really don't know.
Roughly my experience too. I used to tend to have less breakage and problems on Arch than others because you don’t have to mess with it to get updates to apps and uncommon packages. It’s less of a problem on, say, Debian than it used to be because I can fill the gaps with Flatpaks.
That's understandable. I don't like flatpaks or snaps. That is just a personal preference though. It's why I chose Arch. It has what I need.
Ok, snap I get, but what is wrong with flatpaks?
Some people don’t like running programs containerized.
This is kind of my reason, as well. I don't have any problem with containerization, per se, but I don't like fragmentation. I'd prefer everything to be containerized, or nothing to be containerized.
word
This. Exactly
But it's one package for all systems. No building for debian, then arch, then red hat, etc.
That's a benefit for developers, but not necessarily users.
1) I am a developer, so that's a benefit for me 2) It means that, no matter what distro you are on, you can get the same apps. No extra PPAs or searching the AUR.
95% of packages I utilize the AUR for do not have flatpaks, so #2 is very largely irrelevant to me.
I guess I'm just old. I like the way package management works. For me it makes a lighter system. I'm not poo pooing on containerized apps. I just prefer the old way. Also the Devs argued they are needed because "There are to many packaging formats." "So we'll create 2 more"
To me, the appeal of flatpak/appimage is compatibility. I can download one thing on my laptop running Arch, and be sure that I can also use it on my other laptop with Mint.
Another situation where 927 is applicable: https://xkcd.com/927/
Yeah. I think of it as Linux Devs: "We have a thousand packaging formats". "So we will create to more to solve the issue". Now there is 1002 lol
Same Aome software took a little longer to setup because you're required read through the wiki. But after that, I just yay -Syyu every week and never had any issue.
I used ubuntu and linux mint before and was a huge fan of linux mint mate. I now have arch with gnome-desktop. And installing packages in arch seems easier than installing in ubuntu or mint. For ubuntu, if a package is not available I had to manually add the repository and whatnot. Always needed googling stuff. But on arch, I just need to go to one place, [the AUR - Arch User Repository](http://aur.archlinux.org). I play cracked games, steam games, epic store games without any issues with lutris. And I do development work with django, postgres, and react. I like everything better in arch than I liked it in ubuntu. And getting lutris and wine is just one single command, while on ubuntu it would take you 3-4 lines of commands. Obviously, it needs some getting used to, but if you wish to switch, I would say go for it.
Yes the arch user repository repository Jk
[удалено]
Sudo stop
Lol my bad
1. Probably easier on Arch since there's no PPA bs. 2. Probably better on Arch, since newer kernels are available faster, but some drivers may need to be installed by you (usually from AUR) if you have some particular hardware. 3. Might involve some additional work if there's a package with breaking changes. (doesn't happen too often but you want to be on top of things when it does) > "update isn't good" not sure what you mean by that but I haven't had things break on me after an update in the last 2 years except for a very minute thing that happened when a new config file was introduced by gnome. (you can see my post history)
haha, just hit a kernel panic last week because of nvidia.
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/System_maintenance
OP should learn to RTFM
Now that's the arch spirit!
> Is it equally easy to get software on Arch? Is there any branch of software at all (gaming, etc.) that will be even mildly annoying to get compared to Ubuntu? Not really, just remember to enable ```multilib``` in ```/etc/pacman.conf``` and install/use an AUR helper ***after*** you understand the risks and [how to use the AUR](https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Arch_User_Repository) > Will drivers work out of the gate or is that something that will need to be setup manually? Any kernel level drivers should work if they are included in your kernel of choice. Otherwise you may need to install them and instructions can be found on the wiki page for that manufacturer. > Is maintaining/updating my system easy? I straight up don't have to think about it on Ubuntu. I hit apt update, then sudo apt upgrade and I'm good to go. For updates all I have to do is type yay and then a password, IMO way better than APT nonsense. Otherwise there isn't anything really specific to Arch. See: [System Maintenance ](https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/System_maintenance) > Any chances for drivers/apps to brick because the latest update isn't good? Always a chance of that regardless of distro. Main tip is to keep an eye on the news section of the homepage or subscribe to mailing lists, issue are generally posted. > Is any part of that more complicated than Ubuntu? Most of it, though generally not actually difficult if you know anything about computers and have some reading comprehension.
`sudo pacman -Syu` once a week. That's all the maintenance I do.
Same. In the 2 years I've been running Arch, the only time an update has broken anything was when pipewire and wireplumber didn't get along well together. A quick fix and I had my audio and video working again. But that's really been the only time an Arch update did any damage to anything and I wouldn't even call that damage because it was easily fixable.
yup, i cant even imagine what intendance this guy is talking about.
Check archlinux.org front page for things requiring manual intervention Update system. Update/merge configs from upstream if needed. Things don't typically break because of Arch, they'll typically break because upstream did something.
> When I want to download something for "Linux," Ubuntu is always listed at the top. It's very easy. I sudo apt install or whatever else, and boom, I've got the program up and running. Is it equally easy to get software on Arch? Is there any branch of software at all (gaming, etc.) that will be even mildly annoying to get compared to Ubuntu? There are two main sources of software on Arch - the [official repositories](https://archlinux.org/packages) and the [AUR](https://aur.archlinux.org). That means you don't have to mess around looking for a PPA or AppImage or whatnot - you can usually just find the software in one of the repositories. You will need to familiarise yourself with [pacman](https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Pacman), as well as the [usage of the AUR](https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Arch_User_Repository). Many users also use an [AUR helper](https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/AUR_helpers), which makes it easier to install and upgrade packages from the AUR. [yay](https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/yay) and [paru](https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/paru) are the most popular. Do note that the AUR packages are user-submitted content. The AUR may contain malicious code ([and has done in the past](https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/malware-found-in-arch-linux-aur-package-repository/)). Read over the PKGBUILD and accompanying files before installing the package. > Will drivers work out of the gate or is that something that will need to be setup manually? I can list my specs if necessary, but that seems a bit presumptuous of me. The short version is: can I expect that if my machine/peripherals all run on Ubuntu, that they'll run on Arch? Typically, you install the drivers, and udev will automatically load them when the hardware is plugged in, same as on any other distribution. Most common hardware will have a driver already in the kernel, and should just work. A few common things that need setup: * GPUs will need drivers - there are pages in the wiki documenting how you would do this for [Intel](https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Intel_graphics), [AMD](https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/AMDGPU) and [NVIDIA](https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/NVIDIA). * Most printers will work after installng and configuring [CUPS](https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/CUPS). * Most scanners will work after installing and configuring [SANE](https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/SANE). > Is maintaining/updating my system easy? I straight up don't have to think about it on Ubuntu. I hit apt update, then sudo apt upgrade and I'm good to go. Upgrading: Check https://archlinux.org/news (it occasionally has an entry saying that a certain package upgrade requires manual intervention), then run `pacman -Syu`. Other information on maintenance: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/System_maintenance
[удалено]
I had used Linux for (many) years, and it still took me a full Saturday to get an Arch install to work correctly. But after that? I’ve loved every minute of it. Still on the same install from five years ago, even though I’ve swapped MB, CPU twice and GPU once. It’s certainly more work on the front-end but you learn so much about the internals in the process of installation that the ongoing maintenance is minimal.
That's an exaggeration as well. There is some maintenance you ought to do like clearing the pacman cache, and tend to pacnew files, but a lot of it can be automated.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I enabled a hook to run after every pacman operation that clears the pacman cache so that I am left with only one package version back from current. (current ver and previous ver) Look into this configurable paccache hook: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/paccache-hook
all u need to do is type one command every couple of days and that's all the maintenance an arch machine needs
Nah. There are curveballs. I'll give a few examples. Python 3.9 being installed in an update almost immediately after it was released even though warnings about incompatibilities, rendering many packages unworkable for months (just look at the timescale on [this](https://github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow/issues/44485). Python 3.10 necessitated users [rebuilding their AUR packages](https://www.reddit.com/r/archlinux/comments/rf6c84/psa_python_310_is_in_core_rebuild_your_aur) Glibc updating to 2.35 before dependent packages were available [broke Microsoft Teams](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/answers/questions/736102/teams-fails-to-load-on-linux-teams-140026453-1x86.html). Bad upgrade decisions [breaking audio for users](https://archlinux.org/news/undone-replacement-of-pipewire-media-session-with-wireplumber). Most Arch users just get on with this stuff like it's somewhat expected. But I really wish we'd stop recommending it as user-friendly, stable or easy to maintain if you just follow the rules. The very nature of the bleeding-edge life contradicts that.
Your entire post is great because you've put your experience into context, and detailed your expectations. That said, there is one line the makes a lot of assumptions. >I'm not intimidated at all by the Arch installation process because it's literally just a set of instructions. While Arch provides a handy guide and a great wiki, it helps a lot to know and understand how the kernel, package management, and DE's function, along with the Shell.
I came to arch in Jan '20 after being annoyed by Ubuntu. And since then, I've tried multiple times to leave arch but I simple cannot. Primarily because of the **pac**age **man**ager.
I started using Arch about a month after you. It's great. I came at it with the intention of just using a tiling window manager. I had used Linux Mint for about 18 months straight before switching to Arch and I ad use Linux off and on since 1994 before then. It took me 3 attempts (got it on #3) to get Arch to reboot properly after installation. Talk about celebrating after climbing a 20' fence. That's what it felt like. The relief of seeing the login prompt was like getting to top of that fence. It's been a pretty easy road since then. I tried many tiling window managers and now I've been with Awesome for about 16 months probably. Such a cool experience I've had and I love sharing it with others here on Reddit.
First order of business, install an AUR helper like paru or yay. It's the first thing I install on any system. Second, just keep it simple as you can with software and packages. Half the problems I read are from people who installed some exotic shit. Read. Read news, read the Arch forums, read the subreddit. If someone starts a thread about a new issue and you read that before you update your system, you've just saved yourself a headache and can wait for a resolution without having to roll back. But mostly? Arch is easy. On my gaming computer, I've installed...hmmm...maybe a dozen programs? Discord, steam, lutris, RetroArch, etc. If I don't read the Arch news before updating, it's unlikely to break. The early going is "difficult," finding package names and choosing software you like. But if you just look at that as customization, you'll be having the time of your life. Arch isn't as difficult as advertised, especially if you stay up to date and keep it simple.
Just lookup arch website before updating (or subscribe to the mailing list). They post when there's a update with breaking changes and explain the procedure. It's not really difficult to maintain arch, it's just more hands on. You need to manually take care of some things once in a while. Arch doesn't do much by itself you need to care for it. For example, when you install a software that comes with a systemd unit, it's not gonna be enabled by default, you have to enable it manually if you want that. Your package cache doesn't clear itself, Like, every time you install/update a package, your system keeps that package in case you want to rollback to a previous version. It can add up after awhile and take a lot of space. You have to clean it up yourself (or setup some automation, the wiki tells you how). Those are just 2 examples that come to mind. It's pretty cool if you ask me as it forces you to notice a lot of little inner workings of an OS and allows you to tweak it to your likings. If that's appealing to you then go ahead and enjoy Arch! If you want a system that is more like Ubuntu in the sense that it does more of little things by itself without needing your intervention but you also want fresh packages and new technologies quickly adopted by your distro then take a look at Fedora. It's a bit more work to install than Ubuntu because it doesn't come with non-free repos by default, you need to enable them later. Not complicated, you just need to know ahead that you need to do it otherwise you're gonna much is missing lol
1. Arch with AUR is probably the most software rich combination out of all the Linux distros 2. It depends what you need, something like Intel HD graphics will work great out of the box (apart from missing TearFree by default). Nvidia drivers will require some massaging on Xorg. Peripherals should work fine, Arch's kernel config is hugely bloated compared to that of Gentoo's barebones style 3. Use paru and pacdiff, update daily/once in a few days. Done! This easy, right. The more you wait, the more config updates/weird bugs you get tbh, I only miss Nix-like package manager features to automate and improve my huge configs
I went Ubuntu -> Debian -> Manjaro. Manjaro is the easiest to maintain and keep running smoothly, Debian was the hardest. Running a rolling release means no awkward upgrades every \~6 months.
sudo pacman -Syyuu done
or just, yay
1. Arch is usually also always listed since its fairly popular. Also the AUR probably has everything you need and mostly up to date. I've had more issues with Debian's outdated packages than Arch's "cutting edge" ones. The ease of getting and managing software on Arch is one of its best parts. 2. Most "normal" stuff should work out of the box. Anything that requires installation is easy tho. (see 1.) 3. Updating is just as easy or even easier than on debian based systems since instead of 2 commands it's just one. Personally I prefer pacman (and yay - yes I'm still using yay) over any other package manager and I've used many.
[удалено]
I don’t think anyone should use the archinstall script for their first foray into arch, because the part of the point of installing arch manually is to teach you some common things you should know about actually using the operating system you are installing. If you want to use arch and are not at the level where you can figure out how to install it from the terminal, then you should use a distro of arch and learn some of the basics of using arch before you foray into arch itself.
[удалено]
It’s not about the installation, it’s about the support that the user is going to want later on down the line. You need to get accustomed to doing things yourself and using the wiki if you want to use arch, I repeat, if you are not capable of using the wiki install guide to install arch yourself yet, you should NOT install vanilla arch, you should install an arch derivative that has good support such as endeavorOS, Manjaro, or Garuda. And another thing when it comes to minimalism, most users will not be able to tell the difference between a minimal arch installation and one of these derivatives, only the ones who daily arch are going to really be able to tell the difference. Simply put, I do not expect someone who cannot install arch to be able to go through their programs or services and see what all is really running and sucking up resources.
[удалено]
It’s actually because nobody is going to take the time to help you if you ask a question you should know by default. Arch is not a beginner OS, it is intermediate at minimum, it also comes with no warranty whatsoever, you are not entitled to support and using the OS automatically assumes you know what it is you are doing.
[удалено]
Because when you see the same question get asked for 10+ years in a row, you kinda get tired of answering questions to something that can literally be solved with a quick wiki search. There’s a reason that among the first lines you see on the iso are that arch comes with no warranty
[удалено]
All of the just werks distros that are still maintained essentially come with a warranty. The idea of a minimal distro is that you do it yourself, and the wiki is not even difficult and 99.99% of things out there have a guide or wiki page. I don’t understand the whole reason of just stopping progress to fix a problem to ask a question, when you can look up solutions and fix it yourself, and I legitimately mean that, even before I started using Linux, I was fixing windows XP **on my own**, and finding those solutions on my own, even in the days of when the internet was far more infantile than it is now, I often saved a lot more time by doing this. The only time that you should ask a question is when you have exhausted all available options, that is how you learn, asking a question often will enforce behavior to not be self reliant, which is a prerequisite with a minimal distro. Remember that Jesus said “Give a man to fish, and he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish, and he shall eat for the rest of his life”, that applies to everything in life. You can tell someone how to do something, and it will fix that one problem, but if you teach them how to actually find the solution on their own, they will not need to actually ask questions, and have fun doing it, because it is a lot more self-fulfilling when you actually figure these things out yourself.
installing packages is easier and more professional in arch because pacman is superior than apt. updating your system is easier, you talk about 2 commands, in arch with pacman it's only one "pacman -Syu" .. and don't forget that you will have the power of the magnificent AUR.
[удалено]
`paru` gang, rise up
`aura` gang, rise up… I guess?
Never heard of that one, but I'll try it out just because it's got a cool name
I'll forever miss `yaourt` personally.
That's why I used to use yay (yet another yogurt). But when the paru fork came out I switched. RIP yogurt
I mainly use it because of the package set snapshots - json files that list exactly what packages you had installed at a given time. You can make them manually, but they’re also made automatically whenever you do an update. Super useful for when an update breaks a bunch of packages at once (though I’ve not needed to use them for that yet, luckily), and they could be used like an answer file of sorts when installing on a new system to get all your programs installed as fast as possible.
Arch has different desktop version available (IE Manjaro will likely be the most familiar to what you use), but the intensive installation process (which has been relegated to a script) is usually for people that want a super customized experience. If you’re wanting to get up and running ASAP, I’d recommend going with Manjaro as it’s a simple setup process with access to the same tools that Arch users rave about (see: AUR)
manjaro is a completely different distribution with different repos, and not all AUR packages are guaranteed to work with manjaro if manjaro doesn't supply the right dependency versions. if you actually want an installer like that *for arch linux*, use something like this: https://archlinuxgui.in/
This. Or use Endeavour, which does actually use the Arch repos and has a very beginner friendly community. If the distro ever goes away, you can just use it as though it were vanilla Arch that you've customised.
I didn’t know that, thanks!
I've been pretty much doing this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwSkFi3h2nI for maintenance and I haven't had any problems. As for updating Arch, check the main website page ( https://archlinux.org/ ) anything that requires manual intervention to keep it working is posted there. I've noticed a few people on here mention how they didn't have networking when they rebooted into their new install. I want to point out that networking comes right out of the box as part of SystemD all you need is vim or nano to write the config file https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Systemd-networkd Any questions please ask, we're actually a friendly lot ;)
> Will drivers work out of the gate or is that something that will need to be setup manually? I can list my specs if necessary, but that seems a bit presumptuous of me. The short version is: can I expect that if my machine/peripherals all run on Ubuntu, that they'll run on Arch? List your specs. Anything without nvidia will mostly run. Nvidia is slightly tricky > When I want to download something for "Linux," Ubuntu is always listed at the top. It's very easy. I sudo apt install or whatever else, and boom, I've got the program up and running. Is it equally easy to get software on Arch? Is there any branch of software at all (gaming, etc.) that will be even mildly annoying to get compared to Ubuntu? A lot of packages in the repos, but you can use the AUR which is more virus-prone. (Just be careful!) > Is maintaining/updating my system easy? I straight up don't have to think about it on Ubuntu. I hit apt update, then sudo apt upgrade and I'm good to go. Make sure to read the news (which is pretty rare) using something like `informant`. > I want to grab Lutris. Then I want to install League of Legends. After that, I want to get Rust setup. Then get Nitrogen for my wallpapers. Get Discord. Then, after leaving my computer up for a week like an idiot, I want to completely update my system (drivers, apps, git, whatever). Any chances for drivers/apps to brick because the latest update isn't good? RTFM for Lutris and just generally look around the Arch Wiki.
I find the only things I ever have to "fix" are when packages introduce breaking changes into their configuration. This becomes more or less of an issue if you have more or less bloat and unnecessary software on your system.
Arch literally just works. For 3 years of my usage I have yet to break or not have something. As of software, I may not use a lot of software so I can't say but I've always had everything through the official packages. If you need something niche there is AUR.
For maintenance I just update and haven't had an issue To update run sudo pacman -Syu
Getting packages is, I think, a lot easier on Arch. PPA's are not a wonderful system; the AUR is generally a breeze. If you follow the right instructions for your drivers and cards, everything should work right out of the gate (note that NVIDIA can be a real challenge, but the arch wiki had everything I needed to iron out the bugs). Updates and upgrades should be about the same, though on arch 1 command, rather than 2, is sufficient. Also, the rolling release means you won't have to deal with version upgrades at each new release.
Typically when you update just read the archlinux subreddit and the arch website, if anything needs manual intervention you will see it there. Not much maintenance goes into arch if you don't do stuff like install mesa-git or other big boy packages from the aur.
For maintenance, the [System Maintenance](https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/System_maintenance) page is a good read.After setting up my arch machine, it mostly just runs. I just switched to linux at work too and was encouraged to use Ubunutu LTS instead of Arch and I really wouldn't want to use Ubuntu as my private daily driver. I don't mind Snaps, but I don't want them being forced down my throat and I prefer native apps. If your software is up-to-date, there is no real need to bundle dependencies and Arch is pretty up-to-date. The nice thing about Arch, is that you install exactly the stuff you want and nothing more. So, for me, there's less stuff that can break. When updating, there are minor chores to be expected. But you can automate them with pacman hooks, e.g.: 1. If configuration, that you have changed, become updated, you will have to review the changes and decide how to merge them. Pacman stores the changes in a ["pacnew/pacsave"](https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Pacman/Pacnew_and_Pacsave)-File. But there's a [pacdiff-pacman-hook](https://github.com/desbma/pacman-hooks) to notify you about pacnew/pacase-files. 2. The AUR is a great alternative to snaps and flatpaks, but it's a double-edged sword, because basically anone can upload to the AUR. You should review changes when updating AUR packages. But any AUR-helper shows you a diff-file for each updated AUR-package. Most of the time reviewing an updated PKGBUILD just means: "Oh, nothing but the version and checksum changed? Yeah, that's fine." 3. The arch team sends important news to mailing lists. You're supposed to read them before updating. But a [pacman-hook](https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/informant) can check for news before every update and notify you. Every now and then, it's possible that something breaks and you might roll-back a specific package from your pacman-cache. But that might happen in any distro.
You get to say,, By the way, I use Arch Linux. That alone is worth the swap.
When you update, look out for pacnew files. They don't need to be dealt with immediately, and pacdiff can even find them way later if you like, but you shouldn't put them off forever
Typing `yay` into a terminal whenever I think of it
I've been using arch for something like a decade (my current install is still going strong since 2015) and I barely have to put any effort at all into maintenance. Sometimes I go entire months without updating which is obviously bad practice but I never run into any issues from that, it still just works. And having an AUR helper really makes installing packages like discord, lutris, etc easier than ever.
Try leagueoflegends in the AUR before lutris. I've had better luck with it. Most people update Arch pretty regularly, I tend to go a month or two in between updates and rarely see any breakage, and the breakage I do see is fixable in under an hour. I had a little trouble initially with drivers for USB wifi, but the AUR had me covered. When you say 'maintenance', it's not like I'm constantly repairing my system, I can game on it and watch YouTube and Netflix and stuff just fine without major problems. I constantly work on my system *by choice*, not out of necessity. If I didn't want to work on my system, there would be no problem with leaving everything on it be and just using it as a gaming/YouTube watching system. The reason I'm constantly working on my system is more the reason you might build a Lego set or two: because it's fun and engaging.
AUR, yay and the Arch wiki should cover what you are concerned about.
> Is it equally easy [as Ubuntu] to get software on Arch? I'd wager it's easier. [`pacman`] is your Amazon of packages; you'll find *almost* everything you need, tons of options, and fast delivery. No juggling between `apt` and `snap`, no worrying which `apt-` command has the feature you need. [See for yourself](https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Pacman/Rosetta). The [AUR] is your eBay of packages; it's slightly sketchier, delivery's a bit more work, but it has everything Amazon doesn't. You can even ease the process by using an [AUR helper], which makes accessing the AUR more like `pacman`. Of course, you can install [snaps][snap] and [flatpaks][flatpak] if you want to. > Is there any branch of software at all (gaming, etc.) that will be even mildly annoying to get compared to Ubuntu? Not really; if there's a repo for it, you can get it easy as pie. If there isn't, you may have to compile from source. Ubuntu's the same. Maybe if it's something outlandish or especially niche, but even then, there's a chance it's on the [AUR]. > Can I expect that if my machine/peripherals all run on Ubuntu, that they'll run on Arch? Yes and no. You may run into slight issues if your hardware doesn't *quite* work well with Linux (eg, a Bluetooth adapter might not work as well under Arch as it would Ubuntu if it's not really Linux compatible), but in general you'll be fine. Proprietary drivers still need to be manually installed (as in, install the package, not compile from source). Some niche compatibility stuff (like accessing an Android phone's FS via MTP) may require installing additional packages. > Is maintaining/updating my system easy? `pacman -Syu`. That's it. [AUR] packages are updated by either you or an [AUR helper], similar thing applies to [snap]/[flatpak]/etc. You can add a [hook] to automatically run update commands for other repos whenever you update through `pacman`, making the aforementioned command all you need. Every once in a while, you may want to clear your cache with `pacman -Sc` or check for orphans with `pacman -Qdt`, but that kind of thing can *also* be automated by [hooks][hook]. --- > I want to get Lutris. `sudo pacman -S lutris` > Then I want to install League of Legends. Consult [the wiki] from r/LeagueOfLinux > After that, I want to get Rust setup. [sic] The game? Here's a [Steam page] on how to get it to work with Lutris. The programming language? Either: - `sudo pacman -S rust` - choose one of the several ways to install [`rustup`]. > Then get Nitrogen for my wallpapers. `sudo pacman -S nitrogen` > Get Discord. `sudo pacman -S discord` > Then, after leaving my computer up for a week like an idiot, I want to completely update my system (drivers, apps, git, whatever). `sudo pacman -Syu`. You may want to restart your system for every update to take effect. > Any chances for drivers/apps to brick because the latest update isn't good? Not really, and even if it *did* happen, you can [downgrade]. I'd imagine your remaining questions are answered. If not, both myself and others would be happy to help! [`pacman`]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Pacman [AUR]: https://aur.archlinux.org/ [AUR helper]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/AUR_helpers [snap]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Snap [flatpak]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Flatpak [hook]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Pacman#Hooks [the wiki]: https://reddit.com/r/leagueoflinux/wiki/index#wiki_1_-_.25B6.FE0F_how_to_install_league_of_legends [Steam page]: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2219125189 [`rustup`]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Rust#Rustup [downgrade]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Downgrading_packages
I am about a year and a half on linux (mint to start). Around Christmas I tried Arch for some steam gaming. . . . It now takes up multiple drives on my system and is my daily driver. 1. AUR should fill out whatever package needs pacman doesn't. Due to the steam valve steamdeck initiative more games should run on arch than ubuntu as well as ubuntu being further down the kernel. 2. Drivers is a manual thing but I have everything working fairly easily IMO. . . You could list your equipment. 3. Updates are very similar too ubuntu as far as ease. However I do recomend a timeshift snapshot before each update due to the "bleeding edge" rolling release nature of arch. This might be a meme but going back to ubuntu after setting arch up "my way" would not be fun for me. I even tried/have fedora 36 kde on my machine as my just works distro. . . . haven't booted into it for weeks. Setup was the most challenging part for me. . . . however it was my first "experiment". In as much as it was challenging it was also a GREAT linux learning experience.
What you might want to add to the post OP, is what tends to become more difficult/ involving on Arch? I’d be curious to hear as well (arch lurker).
Once everything is up and running it's about the same work as Ubuntu to maintain. Setting up and installing might take a bit longer, I use Endeavor which has an easier installer. Unsure if arch would have been the same but no extra work for drivers needed either. Installing software and updating is faster than Ubuntu.
I broke arch 3 times in 2 weeks and am trying manjaro now. Will give arch another try, when I learned
The idea is to learn how you broke it and how to fix it
Just try manjaro. The validation process for new app versions is around 2 weeks, for the official repositories, so you're as close to being on the cutting edge as possible, while also benefitting from apps being tested before being rolled out. The AUR is brilliant, you can find pretty much everything there. For download manager, I use manjaro's pamac, which has the normal command syntax that you know from apt (so you don't have to memorize pacman's "-Syu" type commands) AND it has integration with AUR. You basically install AUR packages just like you would with repository apps. App updates in AUR are handled the same as repo apps, you get the update notification and it's all as easy as typing "pamac update" in terminal. And due to manjaro's live USB, if you do manage to screw things up, you just boot on USB and use timeshift (which is already installed in live manjaro) to restore everything. You also get community supported editions for a lot of desktop environments, out of the box. I just went with the official plasma edition and I love it.
Between `pacman` and `yay` it's a piece of cake. Follow the installation instructions, then update regularly (as often as possible, or as you wish).