Please understand that I haven’t tried or installed Arch Linux yet. From what I understand by reading and watching related videos, Arch is often breaks and a lot of time is required to fix issues. But I have also read comments from arch users who claim that arch has only crashed or caused them problems only a couple of times in a year.
Wouldn’t a stable or non rolling release distro be a great choice for the Steam Deck?? Also, how frequently do the packages get updated on steam os?
You must log in or register to comment.
SteamOS is Arch-based. Arch as a distros is extremely bare-bones. The main difference between all base-distros is how they manage their packages.
Sub-distros may opt to change how the package manager works; Manjaro delays updates until everything has been verified to be working and not likely to break anything. Yet, it is still Arch based.
There’s nothing about a base-distro that makes it inherently unstable. Arch is extremely reliable, depending on what you need it for.
Manjaro delays updates until everything has been verified to be working and not likely to break anything
Yeah that’s what Manjaro thinks they’re doing (or would like to do) in reality the packages depend on specific versions of eachother so things actually break more often than base arch IMO. Please look at the list here as to why you shouldn’t reccomend Manjaro to new Linux users. Their management is really bad and preventable issues happen a lot
Manjaro isn’t great, but for a new Linux user, who doesn’t tinker, it’s quite reliable. Manjaro avoided the Grub crash a year ago which every other Arch-based distro failed to boot from.
My recommendation is Endeavour, but having the Pamac Manjaro GUI makes things a lot less daunting for those trying Linux for the first time.
I learned this the hard way. Started with Manjaro because it was “easier”, and I had nothing but trouble. Switched to Arch, and it’s been smooth sailing.
Probably because rolling distros get updates for new hardware sooner. The Steam Deck was using a brand new AMD APU at the time so it probably benefited from being on the latest kernel and mesa.
Arch really isn’t that bad. I haven’t had too many breakages, and when it does break, they’re usually fixed super fast or they’re easy enough to workaround, whereas I often have to wait weeks or months for bug fixes in more stable distros. Now, would I hand it to my grandma? Not unless I am the one doing the updates for her, but it isn’t the ticking time-bomb that non-Arch users like to say it is.
I read this article a couple of years ago about the subject. Apparently, one part was ease and rapidity of rolling updates with the likes of Arch, and another part of wanting a bit more experimental nature of Arch versus steady-as-she-goes and stable Debian. It’s a rather neat discussion and debate.
Valve devs said they like Arch because it allows them to update steam deck faster than other distros. Looks like they’re skilled enough to limit the downsides of an unstable distro in order to get the latest and greatest package versions.
Arch is actually really stable if you keep it updated. Where it gets ya is if you don’t update it for a couple months or longer.
I just pacman -Syyu every hour an I’m fine.
But really, Arch has been extremely stable. Any issues I’ve had have all been solved in a few minutes after looking at the news on https://archlinux.org/
This has been my exact experience in the 8 years I’ve been using it as my desktop OS. Boot into windows to play some game I can’t get working, beat it a month later, come back and I need to get my boxing gloves out to use my computer again
Please explain this to me. It is stable till it’s not? What happens during that time that makes arch no longer stable?
If you go a long time without updating there are generally lots of updates. So when you update sometimes you can have dependency issues. Basic maintenance prevents this.
Personally I never have this issue and generally don’t have any issues with Arch. Truly have no idea why people think it’s unstable. Maybe bad experiences with Manjaro which is Arch based. Now that distro has stability issues! Garuda and vanilla arch have been rock solid as far as my experience goes.
Have a project that I may have to go donw this route. Haven’t touched Arch in many years so I’d figure it be more “stable”. Didn’t know if there were inherent issues. Doesn’t sound like there is just basic maintenance. Thanks for explaining.
The Valve devs have complete control over every update that goes out. If they do something that breaks the system then their testing was inadequate. But even when that does happen, they can quickly push out a patch. Also, having just one hardware target to test for makes things a lot easier.
deleted by creator
SteamOS is based on Arch but doesn’t follow the same release cadence, as well as using an immutable base OS and an A/B partition layout (much like Android) allowing for rollbacks. So the problems that an Arch user may run into are less likely with SteamOS, because it has some extra protections and testing that is done before it arrives on the user’s device (particularly with the stable channel).
And gaming distributions often prefer a rolling release setup, because gaming benefits from very recent kernel and GPU related packages (that aren’t always fully compatible with older/stable distributions), particularly with AMD hardware.
For the same reason Chromebooks use Gentoo Linux. It fit their workflow in development an immutable OS.
There are a few hang ups an end user might encounter but with an immutable OS it’s been thoroughly tested before reaching the user.
At the end of the day Linux is Linux and it doesn’t really matter what you build your system on. If properly tested, it’ll be rock solid.
Many Valve devs use Arch on their personal PCs.
