A brief account of my experience dual-booting two Linux distros 
Hi there! I decided to take the plunge and try out `archinstall` on an old computer. I’ve always run two distros simultaneously on my PCs: MX Linux alongside either Endeavour (or Antergos, back in the day). It’s a great combination, though I’ve always let MX handle the GRUB bootloader. Here on the forum, Stagger_Lee showed me how to launch `archinstall` so that it installs without a bootloader—something that was really important to me, and I’m incredibly grateful for the tip. Then I decided I wanted to try “pure” Debian, so I used the netinstall image. Things have changed quite a bit there, too; the installer is very user-friendly, and everything works smoothly. First, regarding Arch: once you’ve tried `archinstall` in VirtualBox, installing the system isn’t difficult. Of course, the Endeavour installer is much nicer and easier to use. With the standard Arch install, you miss out on the “Welcome” window at startup, AUR support isn’t included by default, and the KDE appearance lacks any custom theming. Even though the differences are minimal, I strangely feel completely “naked” without the Endeavour team’s oversight and support backing me up. Naturally, this forum is fantastic and I’m not leaving it—especially since I still have Endeavour installed on two other PCs. However, I did notice one immediate downside to `archinstall`, and it seems I’m not the only one. When you update GRUB from the other distro after installation, it takes ages for the Arch installation to be detected. I tried this with MX first, and then with Debian. With Endeavour, the process is very fast—taking just seconds. Additionally, when manually assigning partitions, the installation script doesn’t allow you to set any flags. This can be problematic on older BIOS-based machines, as the “legacy_boot” flag for the partition ends up missing. This means that right after restarting, you have to install GParted to set the flags; otherwise, you won’t be able to see all the partitions in the file manager. What I’ll probably miss most from the Welcome menu is the option to easily clean up the pacman cache and get rid of old software versions. Perhaps someone can tell me exactly which commands are executed in the background for that? So far, there’s very little I miss from the AUR—things like the Brave browser, Librewolf, RStudio for statistics, CableApp (very helpful for music production, for instance, to quickly change buffer sizes and sample rates), and a few plugins like Airwindows effects—but this might be a good opportunity for me to learn how to install software from the AUR without using an AUR helper I actually have a document listing all the essential programs I need. What I really love about Arch and Endeavour is that, after installation, you can simply copy the list of programs you use into the terminal, add “sudo pacman -S” at the beginning, and have a fully functional workstation ready in no time. If you regularly back up and organize your data, passwords, and bookmarks, reinstalling Arch-based distros is actually completely hassle-free. When it comes to Debian, that last point is a bit different. You install from various sources, and things don’t always happen quickly or all at once. Some software is in the official repos; for other software, you have to enable backports first—for example, to get a more recent version of Pipewire (pipewire-alsa and pipewire-jack). Then there are programs like Signal Desktop that require individual installation via a manufacturer’s script, while other packages must be downloaded as .deb files and installed on the system one by one. Finally, there are PPAs (in my case, for Qtractor and instruments from the same developer) that have to be set up manually. There are also some audio plugins that must be manually copied into specific folders, such as .LV2, .vst3, or .clap. Naturally, maintaining and updating all this software is somewhat more cumbersome. On the plus side, it forces you to consider what you actually need. For MX, I also keep a list of programs that I try to keep up to date. On the other hand, the system changes a bit more slowly with Debian; once it is up and running, it tends to run smoothly and reliably for a long time. Unlike with MX, Debian requires you to take a bit more personal responsibility. MX features a software installer that offers access to multiple repositories in one place—including MX Standard, MX Testing, Debian Backports, Flatpak, and even Snaps. Additionally, the MX repositories contain some programs that are much more up-to-date than their Debian counterparts, as well as software that is missing from Debian entirely.
Regarding the MX tools: Interestingly, I’ve used the ISO writer the most, followed by the boot menu (though only three or four times over the years), and I tried Boot Repair once—albeit without much success. Still, you feel somewhat exposed and on your own without those tools available. I’ve never used the snapshot tool so far, as I’ve only ever needed to reinstall MX when a new version of Debian or MX came out. Overall, though, Debian and Arch boot a bit faster—we’re talking about a matter of seconds, of course. Generally speaking, the “parent” systems also feel a bit lighter and smoother than their “offspring” 
Both systems work well for my music-making hobby, but Arch has a clear advantage. You simply install the ZEN kernel and add the user to the audio group. With MX Linux, things are a bit more complex before everything runs satisfactorily—even with the Liquorix kernel—because more system tuning is required. Even PipeWire-JACK isn’t ready to use immediately after installation. Plus, the ZEN kernel is completely trouble-free for daily use. Liquorix caused freezes with AMD hardware and graphics recently, and there’s still an issue with dual monitors: when the PC goes into sleep mode, one monitor turns off, but the second one stays on permanently. After the necessary tuning, I don’t notice any major differences between the standard Debian kernel and Liquorix, especially since the standard kernel just works better for day-to-day tasks. I really like the MX Linux installer because it works reliably and effectively. The only thing I’m really missing is the ability to choose any desktop environment—like you can with Endeavour, Archinstall, or the Debian netinstaller. It would be fantastic if MX got a netinstaller. Of course, I still primarily use MX and Endeavour and really enjoy them. However, I plan to take a closer look at the “motherships” on my test PC to see how well they handle daily use—and maybe I’ll learn something in the process. It has been a very new, interesting, and exciting experience for me so far. Along the way, I’ve also revisited LXQt and looked at it in conjunction with Labwc and KWin under Wayland. No, it’s not quite ready for prime time yet—at least not without a lot of tweaking. However, paired with Openbox, it runs very, very fast on older hardware. It makes sense on a large monitor, though I wouldn’t want to use it on a laptop. The panel needs combined launcher/dock capabilities; otherwise, it fills up quickly and becomes practically unusable. That means you need an additional dock, which immediately makes the laptop screen cluttered and ergonomically poor. There’s also no Bluetooth menu in the dock. The whole Wayland situation makes things a bit tricky with desktop environments if you want to use a well-equipped laptop—one with a backlit keyboard, for instance. Features like that work seamlessly only with GNOME and KDE; LXQt and XFCE lack this basic functionality entirely. Laptops often have larger trackpads, and features like swipe gestures—whether for the browser or general desktop use—are found only in the major desktop environments. Yet those major DEs rely on Wayland, and under Wayland, audio applications like Ardour aren’t really usable.
We live in interesting and eventful times
Best regards
