Arch on semi-critical pc? (Also EndeavourOS vs raw Arch?)

Arch isn’t inherently unstable. It’s just that most users don’t maintain it properly. Tips:

1. learn to backup for real: rsync, borg, etc. you broke something? Just back up to that image you made right before you updated ;)
2. use flatpaks. It’s kind of hard to run into AUR or dependency issues if you’re as close to a base arch install as possible.
3. read the maintenance page and understand it. You can’t just “yay” every week and be done with it. You need to know how to handle pacnew, read the wiki for manual interventions, look for errors and warnings in the pacman log, etc. it’s not hard at all once you figure it out, but it takes a little learning.
4. you don’t need to update every day. If it’s working - you can just let it ride. If you don’t update forever, then just update your keyring first and you’ll be good to go.

Use what you like - it’s all stable enough.

Arch should be fine for university stuff. The main problem with Arch is not Arch itself, but all the software it tracks being very fresh. You'll be pulling updates as they come down the line, and that may result in temporary bugs or day-to-day workflow changes - caused by the software developers themselves. I don't think an Arch system is unusually unstable or prone to breaking, but last year they did brick everyone's GRUB loaders by pushing an update too early (post-mortem here). It's up to you, but if you want to err on the side of system/software stability I would go for Mint/OpenSUSE Tumbleweed/Debian.

I don't have any practical experience with EndeavourOS but TMK it's just preconfigured Arch and it uses the default repos, so that sounds good to me. Vanilla Arch is not inherently better or worse, it's just a more minimal starting point.

I use my laptop for work all day every (week)day. It runs EndeavourOS and I haven't had any problems - if anything I've encountered fewer annoyances than with any other distro I've tried to date (Pop, Fedora, Mint, OpenSUSE, Debian). I don't use Btrfs but I do use Timeshift as well as Syncthing to back up files to a file server at home.

I haven't felt the desire to install Arch, and TBH I'm not sure what the benefit might be because I'd just configure it to be basically the same as EOS anyway.

I think you can use Arch for university, but I have a few suggestions:

• Don't update packages unless you have time to fix issues. Rare, but it happens, although usually minor.
• Never mess with greeters, kernel modifications, bootloaders, or anything else before login. Fixing issues may require a live USB and take some time. Avoid the temptation! (Ask how I know...)
• Use Flatpak where you can for increased stability by way of fewer packages to update.

Of course, you could also use a non-rolling release distro. Nothing wrong with that.

I use Arch for all my computers, including my "critical" systems. I only do full upgrades when I know I have the time to troubleshoot something broken, but rarely need to do so.

More than this, I actually use Arch as the OS for thousands of computers for my work that end up in customer hands, who expect stability. I'm not sure at what point it stops being Arch, though - I pin the package repositories to internal mirrors with fixed package distributions from specific dates to control the software that goes to them, so it's not really rolling release anymore I guess - I control the releases and when updates go out.

Arch is what you make of it. My Arch project desktop pc is constantly shifting and breaking and needing attention as I continually improve it and play with things. My Arch laptop that runs my life and work and is the most important computer I own is a paragon of stability and perfect functioning.

You'll be fine as long as you maintain the system, don't wait too long between updates, and pay attention to the output when you do. I'm running arch on everything - work laptop, a spare laptop, and a server (nas, Plex, home assistant, etc) - two of which are critical systems for me. I use ZFS for all storage pools, including root, and zfsbootmenu, so I can rollback to a previous snapshot if I ever need to or the system won't boot.

Any distro is "stable" if you know how to use it.

Sounds like you're in a good place with Endeavour, why not stick to it?

Here’s another vote for EndeavourOS if you need it. I run BTRFS and timeshift-autosnap, but I’ve never needed to use it. Like the other poster said, I’ve had minor annoyances and brief package conflicts, but nothing critical has ever gone awry.

so is there any point in using Arch apart from the learning experience and being able to say “I use arch btw”?

No. Except Arch support forums only allows raw Arch for some reason, but EndeavourOS also has a forum.

I don't know if you should, but you can. I use Artix for my only computer (also used for uni). It never killed itself. I did once, which was my fault. But I just fixed it.

but depending on who you ask Arch is either the most stable distro they’ve ever used or bricked their pc ten seconds into the install process

This very funny, and true. Arch is almost as stable as its user :)

If the goal is to have the most up to date bleeding edge software, but have it on a critical machine, consider immutable distro like Fedora Silverblue or OpenSuse Aeon. Especially the latter will be just days behind Arch, and if an update breaks something you just roll back and try updating again in a week.

I used Silverblue as my main work system and this saved me a few times.

I'd say yes, but don't change your GRUB theme right before a presentation.

Maybe openSUSE would be a better pick.

I used to daily drive arch, until university, when I got frustrated at the issues it caused me and the time I needed to solve them.

I'd recommend fedora if you want real solid stability.

If you have the time + know how to keep up with Arch, and want the latest packages or need the latest drivers, then go for it.

If you only want an Arch install experience, then fire up a virtual machine and stick with Endeavor or switch to a stable release like Debian on bare metal.

But most importantly, if it brings you value (in productivity or experience) then whatever you decide isn't a stupid decision.

Laptop is fine as a tinkering device, but if you have something critical it's best not to trust a rolling release. I would recommend Fedora Silverblue or something else immutable that automatically updates and does not have a lot of incompatibility issues.

Arch is not something to be relying on consistently. You can make it stable, but then one day you will do a yay -Syu and all of a sudden your critical machine is offline pending troubleshooting that is not required with more stable distros.

EOS is the best out of the box Arch experience I've had, it makes it a lot more user friendly than just the base, and it can be customized just as much as the base. When I was running Arch I was running EOS and it was good for what I needed, although I have had it basically brick itself with an update. I am currently running Fedora Silverblue on my laptop and it's been very stable.

being unemployed is a requirement for using arch. all the free time you spend trying to get things working .I use arch btw.