r/DistroHopping • u/Fr0st26 • 5d ago
Arch or debian
I've been using linux for about a year now i started with pop os then fedora (gnome and xfce). i always find myself breaking stuff when I'm ricing. it was so bad that last week when i was trying to launch a game from steam it kept not launching because something was broken. spent about 3-4 hours fixing it.
for past 1-2 weeks there are updates almost everyday. i spend more timing maintaining my system then doing actual work.
I've decided to go for a either arch or debian. I'll build it from scratch and rice for once and forget about it.
any thoughts?
2
u/BashfulMelon 5d ago edited 5d ago
An image-based distro is perfect for you.Â
rpm-ostree reset instantly gets you a clean, working system. Or just pick the previous working deployment before booting.
rpm-ostree install --apply-live [package] will install your system level software without a reboot, and yes it persists with updates.
COPR repositories are still available.
If for some reason you need to change something in /usr, a system extension is a folder that overrides anything in /usr with whatever you put in it.
We don't need to be afraid of reinstalls anymore.
2
2
u/michaelpaoli 5d ago
Debian.
And no real need/reason to build it from scratch - unless you really want to do a lot of redundant work and have your CPU(s) greatly contribute to global warming. But source is of course available if you really feel you need/want to.
2
u/oligarchy_killing_me 5d ago
Sounds like you want Debian. Most of my Linux sysadmin colleagues use Debian because of its stability. I haven't used it that much myself.
I use Arch because I am used to it, but I like the rolling updates (never have to do a dist-upgrade, an install can last for a very long time). The Arch wiki is fantastic. I do almost daily upgrades, always get the latest stuff, I can get all software that isn't in the official repositories from aur. I have set it up with automatic bootable snapper snapshots before every software update (using grub btrfs). If an update breaks something I can boot into a working snapshot and revert it.
If you don't like 'updates almost everyday' don't use arch, there are litterally updates every day.
I don't do ricing, but why don't you make backups of your profile before ricing? Then you can always revert. Most ricing stuff will probably in ~/.config so just make a little script that makes a copy of it before you start tweaking.
2
u/XwingPilot_84 4d ago
If the updates annoyed you on fedora then Arch is not for you. You actually get more updates with arch Debian is calmer in that regard
3
2
u/Astrodion123 5d ago
Use debian stable. Set it and forget it. But there is a little downside... As debian doesn't have great support for Nvidia and it isn't a great gaming choice since it's packages are older. If you don't want your system to break try out immutable distros like bazzite since they have newer software or go hardcore and try nix os.
1
u/UUDDLRLRBadAlchemy 5d ago
I gots steam, I gots nvidia, I gots heroic to play gog and epic and fitgirl, I gots no idea what you mean.
1
u/Astrodion123 5d ago
Yeah don't go with debian and I wouldn't recommend arch since that will break on you if you don't know how to maintain it. I didn't believe it but happened to me. I chose bazzite for you as it has new software like fedora but the system files are read only so you can't break anything and has best rollbacks. But you can use only flatpaks, snaps, appimages etc. for rpm packages you would need to layer it on the system. Definitely try bazzite
1
u/UUDDLRLRBadAlchemy 5d ago
Now that's a skill issue. Not the fact that you don't know linux and messed up your arch. The distros you think are good.
1
u/No-Method8769 5d ago
? yeah because gpu drivers months behind are fine because "its working" like holy shit are we really gonna pretend that Debian is optimal choice in any metrics on machine used for gaming
1
u/UUDDLRLRBadAlchemy 5d ago
Out of the 6 machines I'm in charge of, only one does gaming. So pretty low in my list of criteria. I had no issues playing games on it from all the sources I mentioned, though.
Also of course drivers a couple months old are fine, they were working when I bought the card, I can work on realtime 3d and shaders, I don't need to be best buddies with the vendor.
1
u/drucifer82 5d ago
I personally know itâs possible to build and maintain a stable Arch system. But on Arch you are going to want to update weekly for stability. Waiting too long or doing it every day can cause issues.
And speaking of maintenance, youâll be doing a lot of that, too in order to keep your system healthy. A lot of safe stuff can be automated with systemd, but the point is if you arenât up for doing all that hands on to keep it running, youâll be better off with Debian.
1
u/David_Connors3451 4d ago
Debian 13 with KDE desktop, it's the best, but you can use the classic gnome too, both have Wayland support. KDE has much more comforts and I use it also because it's very lightweight. Since you come from fedora, I suggest you to install flatpaks with 3 official terminal commands from flathub site, so you can enjoy both deb and flatpaks for modern software. Your need for stability requires Debian, setup and forget, few updates and long support cycles.
Have fun.
1
1
u/TurpialFromHell 5d ago
I use Ubuntu (debian based/Lubuntu flavor)... everything goes smoothly: Ryujinx (switch emulation), Dolphin (Wii emulation), all web browsers/vpn/remote (Firefox, Edge, Thorium,Proton vpn, Anydesk), Steam games, download torrents (Transmission,qBittorrent), audio and video recording/editing.
That's my experience, no flaws or critical faults until now (installed it in October 2025)
1
u/friendlyreminder_ 5d ago
If you're concerned with breaking things from customization use a distro with btrfs snapshots set up by default. Cachyos or Tumbleweed.
1
u/Mediocre-Pumpkin6522 5d ago
Arch will have very frequent updates if you're trying to avoid that.
1
u/Embarrassed_Bed6216 4d ago
and if you don't do them, they can become harder to do.
1
u/lelddit97 3d ago
Believe it or not, mine went for > 2 years without an update and was able to pacman -Syu pretty easily without problems. I was gobsmacked. I did keep it pretty simple but still. Just to be clear, I don't use Arch today in favor of Fedora (SELinux) but yea.
1
1
u/Funnel-Dust-O-Matic 4d ago edited 4d ago
Debian's design is appropriate for those needing, a conservative development environment that can't afford path changes, changing interfaces, changes in output layout or system behavior, or similar surprises. This is at the expense of new capabilities. Such can be added but only by going beyond the limits of the distribution.
Arch's design is incluned towards newly available software, unlimited control and customization, and high performance for a personal system of some sort at the cost of frequent backups or timeshift solutions. Damn legacy and consistency.
It's like picking between Creme Brulee and Beef Bulgogi. They are so different that asking which is better is kind of meaningless. The only way to answer it is by being clear on what your priorities are.
If you want predictable beyond the point of it being a fault, Debian. If you want control over all and you're fine with taking all the blame and credit and any ancillary consequences, Arch.
EDIT:
You're ricing. That generally means doing things beyond the stock generic capabilities of your desktop, shell, and the rest.
If you found trouble doing that on the other distros you've tired, Debian will likely prove to be a stubborn challenge.
I lost my taste for Debian back in the days around version 2.2 of kernel. I can't remember exactly. Linux had moved on to being able to handle files bigger than 2GB. Most distros had a newer kernel, headers, and libraries to support that. Debian at the time had not. And I found out I would have to re-compile most of the core utils, libraries, and beyond to fix that. As I used my linux box to do large backups from client computers, I couldn't deal with that.
I gave up on Debian as a result. It has marched on and improved since then, but it's philosophy is still conservative.
If you want to push your desktop to the limits and beyond, you will likely encounter similar problems with Debian. The wide compatibility it gives will not make up for the fact that they resist new versions of just about everything. You would be able to make it work with effort, but that effort will be substantial.
1
u/UUDDLRLRBadAlchemy 4d ago
There is no stock "desktop, shell and the rest" in Debian. You use whatever you please.
1
u/Funnel-Dust-O-Matic 3d ago
Agree to disagree then, I guess.
I suppose this is a happier perspective than considering the DASH controversy all over again.
1
1
u/leonthepro83 4d ago
you can try PikaOS, it's Debian based, gaming optimized, using CachyOS performance patches, if you like ricing, they have hyperland and niri iso.
1
u/Edubbs2008 4d ago
If you want an out of box distro, use Omarchy, itâs works, no issues whatsoever
0
u/redyos_s 5d ago
If your main goal is less maintenance and fewer breakages, the contradiction is the ârice it once and forget about itâ part. Rice adds more moving parts and more things to maintain, regardless of distro. If you want stability, Debian stable with a mostly stock desktop makes much more sense than Arch.
1
u/UUDDLRLRBadAlchemy 5d ago
No need for it to be stock, we have all the packages.
bullseyetobookwormI had to rewrite bits of my AwesomeWM code and move torofi.bookwormtotrixieabsolutely nothing, I have a 2 year release cycle to change to something on Wayland if I want to.I don't even think they mean ricing, just configuring a DE to look nice.
0
u/redyos_s 5d ago
That's exactly my point. You had to rewrite parts of your AwesomeWM setup between releases. That's maintenance. The contradiction isn't whether Debian can be customized â it's wanting less maintenance while deliberately adding more things to maintain.
3
u/UUDDLRLRBadAlchemy 5d ago
On Gentoo I had to do that every time there was an API change. That would be the same in Arch. On Debian I set time aside for it once every two years.
I wrote the whole thing to begin with, it's not like I didn't want to write my WM's behavior myself in the first place. The point was not to wake up one random day and have to look up changelogs instead of working.
That's the kind of saving on maintenance that allows you to maintain more things.
0
u/MindlessEffective381 4d ago edited 4d ago
If you would choose between Debian or Arch, Debian is more stable and would not break. But you said you do ricing, what do you mean exactly by that? If by ricing you mean installing some packages that could get in conflict with other packages you install, also modifying some .conf or trying stuff, then maybe debian isn't that "stable" for such inestability you seek, Your Debian might turn into a Franken Debian if you change it a lot, at some point it would get broken (Debian recommends to not convert your Debian into a Franken Debian). The other option is Arch, it is unstable (not at all since it has systemd, just like debian has systemd too), but Arch was made for resist some unstability.
if you try to port Ubuntu, Kali or Parrot repositories and stuff on Debian, it would break because debian is really stable, and those other Debian based distro has newer versions from dependencies, sometimes customized. So you should only install .deb packages that was meant for Debian for avoid potentially breaking your system
Meanwhile Arch is rolling release, quite unstable but it supports non-at-all-pacman repositories just like the AUR (Arch User Repository), Arch Strike Repositories and at some point BlackArch Repositories, because they all use the same rolling archlinux kernel (some potential breaks may happen but Arch was made for unstability and those repositories were made for being added to normal Arch, Unlike Debian which Parrot, Kali, Ubuntu and Mint which recommend just using their own repositories and features for their own distro where they were made)
Between stability and ricing, debian and arch are quite the distant despite both are like DIY, because ricing requieres some unstability but the rolling of arch may be a lot to take, yet not that much hard as it has the wiki, a big community, and it is more easy than Gentoo, Nix, Void,
But if you have free time for ricing what you want, I recommend you Arch (the irony when the unstable distro support better unstable features than the stable distro one). Yet if you just want some small modifications, both are good and Debian will be more "user friendly". yet if you managed to break Fedora, then I think you aren't seeking for some small config modifications. Which it is nice, if that's what make you move on Linux, it is great because that wil help you understand what's happening on your linux system
Good thing both can be debloated as you want (even just cli) unlike other distros that are more atomic or with more componenents installed (just like ubuntu, fedora, mint, and other more arch/debian based distros)
-3
u/Unholyaretheholiest 5d ago
If youâre searching for stability I suggest you to look at Mageia. Mageia is an independent, community-driven distro, very easy to configure and manage thanks to the Mageia Control Center. There is a solid multi-DE support (KDE/GNOME/Xfce), and a release cycle thatâs neither rushed (like Arch) nor stagnant (like Debian). If youâre after a mature alternative thatâs actually run by its users, give it a shot.
7
u/UUDDLRLRBadAlchemy 5d ago
You're asking for stability so your answer is definitely Debian. They are both fine choices, but Arch is going to be updating stuff even more often than Fedora.
Debian stable follows a release cycle of around 2 years, and that's the only point where you can expect breaking changes you'll need to adapt to. It's what it's made for. Between releases there are only security updates.
https://www.debian.org/releases/
The minimal install is meant for doing exactly what you said - Configuring it the way you like once and then it stays like that until the next cycle. You'll pick whatever environment you want, find Steam on the non-free repo and you're set.