I think EOS has become my "Zen Garden"

I suppose this and Arch running on my old “Distro tester” but, I kinda like maintaining it. Because it’s “latest and greatest” software, you get the occasional hiccup. If it’s my problem, I figure it out and fix it. If it’s a genuine software bug, I gather what info I can and try to file a decent bug report on the associated GitHub page. I mean, if I really wanted “just works” stability, I could install a distro that does that (like Mint). Honestly though, I’m kind of enjoying the process of keeping EOS running well and growing to prefer the terminal centric approach.

I don’t know, I guess I just prefer driving a “stick” as opposed to an “automatic” :wink:


Yes, there are occasional hiccups, but I disagree that this is because of the rolling release nature of the distro and the freshness of software.

There are just as many (if not more) hiccups on static release distros.

I’ve been using 'Buntu for longer than I’ve been using Arch-based distros, and I remember there being many, many more hiccups.

I haven’t used Mint personally for any significant time, but it is enough to use it for an hour to notice the hiccups. I would even go as far as to say that getting everything to work properly on Mint is slightly more difficult than on Arch, because of how the internals of the OS are abstracted away from the user. The advantage of static release distros is that you don’t have to update them (apart from some security updates). But that also means that broken software stays and accumulates in the repos (unless it is so obviously broken that an update is warranted). Often, software developers are furious when they get the same bug reports over and over again, for bugs that have been fixed months ago, but the static release distros just refuse to include a newer version in their repos. The most notorious example is the xScreenSaver drama. :rofl:

This notion that Arch is somehow more “unstable” (and by that, people really mean “broken”) than most other distros is something you might read on Reddit or hear from a “Linux content creator” on YouTube (and similar smooth-brain sources of tech information), but experience shows that this it is downright false. The software in the Arch repos is remarkably reliant.

I would say just use EndeavourOS (or vanilla Arch set up in a sane way) and update it once or twice a month. Can’t get any more “just works” than that, in my opinion.

Windoze has the reputation of being a “just works” OS, suitable for normies, but from using my company’s laptop, it is obvious to me that it gets broken much more often than Arch. In fact, the forced updates force you to break it from time to time. I’ve been to my company’s IT department many a time with an “update broke this and that” complaint.


people are generally lazy and don’t want any sort of manual interventions while updating their systems. Even experienced users find that hard to deal with and I don’t understand why.
And they are paranoid about updates making their system unbootable. Again, I don’t understand why (aren’t these people supposed to be experienced Linux users)
I am able to fix almost everything on my system even though I’ve been using Linux for less than an year and I seriously don’t get the apprehensions of experienced Linux users using Arch/Arch based.

Other common reason I’ve heard is the pacman syntax and I find that hilarious too


It’s a meme that gets circulated by places like Reddit and YouTube. A clever man once said (and I’m paraphrasing): “Reddit is a place where 101 IQ people gather to feel superior to 100 IQ people.”

And it is true, the stereotype of an Arch user is that of someone who feels superior to other Linux users because he has the impression he is doing something advanced, since using Arch involves opening a terminal once a month and typing yay. :rofl:

The unfortunate consequence of that is that normie Linux users sometimes buy into this myth, and they think: “Arch is unstable: just look at this 'Tuber struggling to boot his computer! Screw this, I’m just going to use Mint”.

And don’t get me wrong, Mint is a great distro. I tend to recommend it to undecided newbies and grandmas more than Arch, simply because it doesn’t require users to understand their systems. For people who lack the desire to learn about their systems (and it is perfectly fine to have that attitude, it’s a character trait), distros like Mint or even 'Buntu are much more suited. (Mint is obviously better, because no snaps.)

Arch-based distros are not for everyone, they do require a DIY mindset, the willingness to tinker with your system and understand it. This doesn’t mean they are not suited for newbies, just that they are better for a certain type of newbie: the one who likes to RTFM. The main characteristic of Arch is that the OS internals are not hidden behind fancy interfaces, but kept simple. But that doesn’t mean that Arch is “unstable” or broken, or in any way more advanced or more difficult.

A humorous exception is Manjaro, where the attempts to make it “stable” tend to break it. Pamac is an example of how trying to abstract away a vital component of an Arch-based system (ALPM) behind a fancy GUI sometimes leads to spectacular failures (for example, DDoSing the AUR). :rofl:


if they don’t know it’s purely a meme by now, what are they doing??


They are consooming content. :rofl:

Don’t forget that it is the current year and we life in a society.

1 Like

I share a very similar sentiment to yours as well, you are not alone in that regard. The maintaining (& updating), the keep it simple attitude, the terminal-centric approach, the bug reporting, the list goes on and on of course, but all that is wrapped up in part of this whole process of running your system how you want to use it and I greatly enjoy that.

For my own experience when I used PopOS, it ran great for a majority of the time. But hiccups did happen from time to time. I want to say every other month or so usually a small hiccup would arise. Most of the hiccups were resolved within a few days, maybe a week or two, and nothing was ever bad enough that it broke the system, so overall the experience was what I’ve expected of a typical Linux distro (esp from a Ubuntu-based standpoint). The PopOS devs are pretty on top of any issue that affects all their users and I felt in pretty good hands. It was always easy enough to reach out on the PopOS subreddit to get some answers if I ever needed.

On the flip-side, with Arch within the past year or so, any hiccup that came out was almost always fixed that day or maybe a day or so after. One thing I’ve always been amazed when using EndeavourOS is the quick turnaround for a lot of fixes from upstream. For other issues that were a little harder to track and more rare, bug reporting came into play, which is a bit harder to quantify because some bug reports I’ve made were closed within a week or less and some bug reports are still open.

I think as long as you have the time available, and patience as well as the willingness to tinker and learn, using EndeavourOS is a wonderful and rewarding experience. However, if life is just too busy and you have no time to manage a system there’s always something like Fedora standing behind you, lurking in the shadows, holding a Fedora 36 USB stick waiting for you…but that’s a story for another time!

I understand why. They want to get stuff done but their PC doesn’t let them. Also they don’t use an incremental backup solution, a must have for rolling distros, so recovery becomes harder.

I didn’t say anything about “rolling release” in my post, nor did I say the OS was inherently unstable. What “minor hiccups” I do see are more related to the software being very recent and bug slipped through. Most recently (related to the Cinnamon desktop), it was an already fixed version that got released by mistake.

As for Mint, experiences differ I suppose. I ran it for years without issue and it remains my go-to recommendation for new or inexperienced users. The local Civil Air Patrol here uses it on their PCs

One thing that helps me is that I have an old computer running vanilla Arch. That is my “F-around and find out” machine. There’s nothing important on that computer so, if it breaks, just wipe, re-install, and start again. So far, I haven’t messed it up so bad that I couldn’t fix it. On my EOS machine, I’m a lot more conservative.

That’s interesting. When I first installed Arch, I was coming mainly from a Debian/Ubuntu background and was expecting a learning curve with pacman. Thing is, I found pacman to be really well laid out and I picked it up pretty quickly.

Yea, it does seem to me that the more toxic attitudes are coming from Reddit. Also, hopefully those people typing in “yay” once a month are also reading the latest news on the Arch webpage. Once in a while, that gets important. I have the rss feed for it in Evolution just to make sure I don’t miss it.

101 IQ, is that a cumulative IQ?



It’s in binary :wink:


My 2 cents, as a moderately technical user who mostly wants an OS that just works (LaTeX, light programming, gaming).

I used Kubuntu since 2008 on all my machines, and have migrated 2 of my 3 machines to EOS (work laptop and main work+gaming tower, with backup work laptop staying on Kubuntu LTS) 6 and 4 months ago respectively. I chose EOS after testing a dozen candidate distros in VMs.

Apart from my typing yay instead of apt, I don’t see a major difference in day-to-day usage with Kubuntu. KDE is KDE either way.

On the contrary, more stuff I need is available in the repos or the AUR, and I don’t have to deal with obsolete software or reinstall my system at inconvenient times (I never ever managed to synchronise myself with the LTS release for my main machine). Having to compile my own versions of Python to keep up was not very user-friendly.

Sometimes I see bugs in EOS, like Desktop Grid being borked in KDE 5.25.0, but it lasts a few days and gets fixed, whereas nearly every version of *buntu had some minor bug that made it in and was never fixed due to version freeze.

I have yet to find a downside from the migration. I update every few days / weeks depending on machine. In case of breakage, eos-timeshift works nicely (I tested it once after an nvidia update broke a specific function of a specific game; nothing major).

TLDR: I don’t tinker unless I really have to, and from my pov, EoS has shown itself to be at least as user-friendly as Kubuntu.


I can’t agree more. I had EOS and I never had the system break on. I agree that content creator often give bad rep to Arch and usually exaggerate that bleeding edge distro some how makes it unstable.

I think this day and age, rolling distro or not, you should have access to latest packages for a better experience.

For me Arch is just as stable and Linux Mint or Fedora.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Back in 1999 I bought a brand new computer with Win98 preinstalled.

Would you believe that after just starting it crashed while booting for the first time! (no updates or internet - dial up modem that time)
It is a good feature to have bugs preinstalled! So convenient! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
I remember I was doing nothing but fixing it all the time.
Six months later I was on Linux and never looked back.


Ah yes, famous stability of Windoz 98 / ME… :rofl:

The best was Windoze 95. It was a challenge to even open a file or a program! I thought then this was the end of M$, it looked so.
I wonder how they made it.

But I would really like to thank M$ for letting me look for an OS that “just works” differently and made me use Linux

I remember being told that, “LInux might crash, but Windows will give you a dialog box, make you click OK, and then it will crash”

…but that’s kinda dated. It’s been a very long time (late 90’s to early naughties perhaps?) that I’ve had a Linux system go down so hard that the best option was “wipe and start again”. Even then, it was more because of me farting around with it than anything else.