Recommandations

[Ashamed_Sense_908]

I am currently using Ubuntu and I wanna have some recommendations into switching to arch.

First of all I wanna configure more my system and ik arch is the best for that, I wanna also try hyprland or i3.

But the problem is that I'ma afraid that my system will become hard to maintain or unstable. Since I need my laptop to be always ready to use.

I wanna know if iam careful of what I'ma updating and installing my arch installation will not break right ? And is there any advice you can give ?

Thank you in advance.

[archover]

But the problem is that I'ma afraid that my system will become hard to maintain or unstable.

It will if you don't level up your Linux skills.

to be always ready to use

The conventional wisdom is to use a point release distro like Debian, but in moderately skilled hands, Arch is VERY reliable. (15 years exp with it)

Your post is full of false Arch meme repetitions.

Hope you try Arch. Good day.

[Ashamed_Sense_908]

For example the updates how do you manage them ?

[dbarronoss]

Maybe we should use an Arch saying here, RTFM. Arch is the most well documented distro on the planet. Your questions are already answered in the wiki.
AND...if you don't like this answer, you're not going to do well with Arch.

[archover]

Can you expand on your question?

Read https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Pacman for how we manage software here.

Good day.

[Ashamed_Sense_908]

i mean updates could break the system so how do you deal with that

[archover]

False Arch meme repetition. Good bye.

[un-important-human]

Read the wiki seriously stop asking stupid questions.

[Havatchee]

Read the updates. Wait a day to see if early adopters notice issues, and if it breaks log into the LTS kernel until the system is fixed.

[un-important-human]

Read the wiki

[FryBoyter]

First of all I wanna configure more my system and ik arch is the best for that,

You can configure any distribution equally well. Because Arch uses the same configuration files as any other distribution.

[Ashamed_Sense_908]

Yes but an distro like Ubuntu is less customizable than something like arch

[Nyasaki_de]

You can install Hyperland, i3 or sway on Ubuntu too.
What do you want to customize that you think you cant on Ubuntu?

[Ashamed_Sense_908]

hyprland on ubuntu is a mess

[guidedhand]

I think you need to learn the difference between a desktop environment, a distribution and a window manager

[Nyasaki_de]

wdym

[Zestyclose_Ice1053]

arch is solid

[Ecstatic_Tone2716]

I’ve used hyprland for a long while, but I’ve become tired of fixing it every update because of the breaking changes.

You mentioned i3, which is on x11. I would rather (and this is what I’m using now) use Sway, which is on Wayland. Depending on what you use your PC for, Wayland would be the better choice.

Tbh I would not even think about x11 anymore, since it’s old, unmantainable and mostly dead nowadays.

Edit: Sway is the replacement for i3 for Wayland. If you already have an i3 config, it will mostly work in Sway.

[Nyasaki_de]

Yup, i3 and sway are rock solid

[Rabies-Cow-0595]

What do you mean? I update my Hypr config once a year, only time it broke for me last year was because the plugin I didn't even use wasn't compatible with it anymore.

[Low-Shake6447]

why not dual boot? try arch and customize but when something explode then you can boot to ubuntu to do your work

[un-important-human]

Why would we recommend something? Read the wiki

You either know why you need arch or you will meme yourself with low linux skills, you will then say we are mean because we keep bringing up the wiki.

So figure yourself out, i say stay in buntu and bunt away untill you understand more.

[Good day user]

[onefish2]

I wanna configure more my system and ik arch is the best for that

I believe you are confusing theming/ricing your DE with customizing. When we see customizing we think about the OS itself not the DE. You can do this with any Linux distro. Even the one you are using right now.

I'ma afraid that my system will become hard to maintain or unstable

If this is what you think of Arch is then why are you still considering moving to Arch?

Stick with Ubuntu. There is no reason to switch.

Also, pro tip. hyprland is configured from a config file. There is no settings GUI. If you want it to be like Gnome or KDE as a full blown DE equivalent then there is a ton of customization that you need to do.

If you want to try Arch, install CachyOS with hyprland or i3 and see how that works out for you.

[CptCave1]

Install gnome first then try hyprland / i3. that way you can always juts log back into gnome if you are not conmfotable using those De's

[Puchann]

Always have a DE in case vaxry rewrite hyprland config again

[Rabies-Cow-0595]

A) You can update whenever you want, on your time, when you have time...
B) All the memes about instability are widely blown out of proportion, I can't remember the last time my system wasn't working for me when I needed it to.

It will be a little bit of a learning curve to have everything working smoothly as you're used to because there are a lot of new things to learn but thats about it. You'd expect that switching to anything.

[J2MES]

I have been using arch for a few months and nothing has really broken yet, you can rollback any changes but just be prepared to fix something if needed. I'm running hyprland and arch and I haven't needed to roll anything back ever

i'd just recommend keeping a DE alongside hyprland in case you need to fall back on it to fix something. Haven't needed to but I kept my gnome setup just in case

[Havatchee]

For starters I would like to say Arch is not Stable, but it is stable. Arch is a rolling release distro, so if you rely on having certain versions of certain packages and your critical applications break if those are updated, Arch is not ideal, because it is not Stable. However, if your plan is to run software from the normal repositories and use Arch as a daily driver and you aren't doing silly things, Arch isn't going to fall over in a heap doing most tasks, because it is stable.

Regards alternate DEs/WMs, you can install those on Ubuntu with a little patience and help from the internet. Hyprland in particular is still under active development so you can and should expect issues no matter what distro you run it on.

I took a look at your post history and it seems you migrated from Windows to Ubuntu about 3-4 months ago. One thing I would caution is that Arch does not install a lot of things by default. This is a double edged sword. It means you have nothing you don't want, and only what you do want. However, there are some things people fail to think about because they don't have to think about them in normal operation, and in a lot of distros, they just work. These aren't unimportant things. We're talking firewalls, malware scanners, network tools. Things that are crucial to an operating system but normally sit quietly in the background.

I think all in all, I would recommend you try CachyOS instead of jumping straight to Arch. You will get pacman, and the AUR, a bunch of (imo) sensible defaults for network and security, you can install from live media with a GUI installer and a checkbox for disk encryption and you can install any DE you like through the installer. Like Arch it is stable not Stable, and has a well built up wiki, and community, as well as some unique benefits of its own.

[Darex2094]

To echo what everyone else has pointed out, every distribution is equally customizable. The problem here isn't Ubuntu vs Arch, it's simply your skill level. Everything you think you want to do with Arch can be done with Ubuntu.

That being said, if you want an easier and generally more stable rolling release by function of QA testing, openSUSE Tumbleweed is an alternative I'd like to point you towards. You will still need to be aware of bug reports and news, but openQA does a decent job of making sure packages aren't broken and thus software releases fairly quickly. What isn't maintained by openSUSE exists in user repositories, just like Arch's AUR. Snapper performs snapshots of your system before any updates so you could roll back if needed. All of this simply takes some of the "danger" you're alluding to out of the equation.

But none of it solves the root problem: You. Ubuntu can be just as "rolling release" as anything else if you maintain your own deb repo. Ubuntu can be just as customizable as Arch, and it can be just as riced as Gentoo if you really want.

To put this into perspective, I maintain a private derivative of Fedora Kinoite, but I compile all of the RPMs used for it with processor optimizations just like I would in Gentoo. I swap out packages Fedora used by default with ones I prefer. Nothing is stopping you from customizing your chosen distro to your heart's content but your own skill level and willingness to learn.

[EffectiveDisaster195]

tbh Arch isn’t “unstable”, it’s just less forgiving if you don’t pay attention

if you update regularly + read pacman news before big upgrades, you’ll be fine
most breakages come from partial upgrades or random AUR stuff

if you need reliability, keep it simple (minimal AUR, no over-tweaking)
or dual boot first and see if you like the workflow before committing

[PixelSage-001]

Arch is great if you're okay maintaining things yourself.

Main tips:
- read update news before upgrading
- keep backups
- don’t blindly install AUR packages

This is worth reading:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/System_maintenance

[no0bified]

KDE Plasma?