Sorry Arch (EndeavourOS), it's not working out any more and hello Fedora

I tried to give Fedora a shot last year when my laptop's NIC died, but I couldn't figure out how to get the Wi-Fi driver compiled. I messed around with DNF, Yum, and probably yet another package manager but never ended up getting an internet connection after a few hours. On Arch, it took me about 2 hours to follow a pretty simple guide to getting my Wi-Fi drivers compiled.

I don't think I'll ever be able to use another distribution; Arch is the only one I've been able to figure out.

Hours to do what now? Sometimes I feel like using Mint and using most other distros is more like using a whole different OS. You install it, the stuff works, you start using it. Two hours? To compile a basic thing? Or worse? Gah. I don't have the time (or knowledge) for that nonsense.


Last edited by Purple Library Guy on 9 April 2022 at 7:12 am UTC

like NVIDIA drivers being a nuisance to install

https://www.if-not-true-then-false.com/2015/fedora-nvidia-guide/ helped a lot with issues, never failed me in years of Fedora.


Last edited by cookiEoverdose on 9 April 2022 at 7:28 am UTC

Cool, I hope Fedora works for you, I’m more than happy with it since several years. Fedora shines with its Gnome integration (which I use), but don’t know how well the KDE integration is set up.

I was amused when I watched a video that was trying to push the idea of not suggesting different distributions, and instead to suggest people use something based on the desktop environment. I sort of agree. If trying to convert someone over, we should ask what the person is looking for. Based on these questions, you suggest the 'best of breed' for the DE, and be sure to ask if they want stability or continuous new features.
For example; if someone wanted simple, out of your face system where you can just launch applications and get work done, I would suggest stock Gnome. If they wanted new features over stability, I would suggest Fedora over Debian.

If they want complete customization, I would probably suggest Suse over Fedora, with KDE. At least it used to be a great KDE distro. Not sure how great it is now.

I kind of miss Xandros, but that might be the Tequila talking...

Yes, I completely follow you. One of the reasons for me for going for Fedora was its Gnome integration (from what I know a lot of Gnome developers use Fedora). It’s also no coincidence that releases of new distribution versions are linked to releases of the desktop environments (at least for Fedora and Ubuntu). So it would indeed a recommendation matrix like:

You love customization and like to play with the desktop itself: go KDE with
OpenSuse or Arch (more stable vs more bleedeing edge)

You love the less is more approach and prefer a desktop that goes out of your way: go Gnome with
Debian or Ubuntu or Fedora (from stable to more bleeding edge)

(I’ve only stated the desktops and distributions I somewhat know, there are of course more)

like NVIDIA drivers being a nuisance to install

https://www.if-not-true-then-false.com/2015/fedora-nvidia-guide/ helped a lot with issues, never failed me in years of Fedora.

Running the NVIDIA installer as suggested on this site is not suitable for the average user imho. I think it is better to keep your system in sync with the rpm/deb databases by using a package repository like negativo17 or rpm-fusion.

So it would indeed a recommendation matrix like:

You love customization and like to play with the desktop itself: go KDE with
OpenSuse or Arch (more stable vs more bleedeing edge)

You love the less is more approach and prefer a desktop that goes out of your way: go Gnome with
Debian or Ubuntu or Fedora (from stable to more bleeding edge)

(I’ve only stated the desktops and distributions I somewhat know, there are of course more)

I'd add in:

You prefer a "traditional" desktop and for things to Just Work, but don't require bleeding edge releases: Go Cinnamon or Mate on Mint.

i guess i will stick with kde+ubuntu thus deb repos are really large. hardware support is realy good on ubuntu also i feel every ubuntu realese is faster than the first one. and i have so few bug experienced in Ubuntu. Only thing that drives me out of ubuntu is default Gnome-shell desktop basicly i hate it. Also i like to check Deepin linux in some time.
but beyond these i really like to install and test google's Fuscia os on my pc
because it seems some important projects will be supported by Fuscia as default like VULKAN api. and that os will be cross-hardware. One os for all.

I found arch to be incredibly robust myself, installed using LUKS and BTRFS along with timeshift

For gaming I use a second arch install using QEMU/KVM with GPU passthrough, and a virtual windows install for steamvr and UE4/5 development.

I have the GPU passthrough devices routed back to my arch host system via a black magic HDMI capture card so I can run them all on the same TV and surround system.

Once you go with Arch you never go back.... :P

I am using EndeavourOS which is kinda Arch with easy installation...

Is just everything works...
I am even on testing repos on Arch with KDE Unstable , very few issues which most issues are solved within a day.

Well, the article says Arch, but I think it was EndeavourOS that Liam was on before he hopped on to Fedora. Indeed, it was his article about it that convinced me to make the same leap. I've been on Endeavour for about 2 or 3 months now. It's great - really enjoy it, and no breakages, whatsoever.

My only gripe is that LUKS takes about 40 seconds to boot - for some reason they decided to put LUKS on the /boot partition as well as the rest of the system, and then combined that with loads of encryption iterations. I guess it's secure, but goddam, it's ridiculous overkill.

A minor gripe though. The system itself is really just Arch and has all the advantages and disadvantages you'd expect from that.

Since 2013 I've been an Arch user and had similar experiences as you did. As I work now full time and couldn't deal with the problems of Arch every weekend, I switched to Manjaro stable about two years ago. One to two times a month there is a big upgrade which rarely breaks something because the Manjaro team is testing most things in advance. Nvidia drivers are well incorporated (though luckily I don't need them anymore) and I still got the AUR, which I wouldn't miss for any PPA, RPM download or install from source!

SteamOS 3.0 is also based on Arch and Valve said in the recent past that it will be a similar experience to Manjaro KDE stable, so why not give this one a try. You know Arch quite well and Fedora differs a lot. E.G. for my home server I switched to openSUSE Tumbleweed (because I hope for a relatively stable rolling experience) and I ran into many bumps that wouldn't have occurred with Arch, because they use the K.I.S.S. principle that openSUSE doesn't want to use. (I couldn't disable SDDM / the display manager, because they got their own program that manages startup things.

With Manjaro you get a much more stable Arch base with a helpful community and the biggest repo that you can ever think of, the AUR!

Well, the article says Arch, but I think it was EndeavourOS that Liam was on before he hopped on to Fedora. Indeed, it was his article about it that convinced me to make the same leap. I've been on Endeavour for about 2 or 3 months now. It's great - really enjoy it, and no breakages, whatsoever.

Specifically I used the EndeavourOS installer yes, but everything else on EndeavourOS is plain Arch, their extras are very minimal and all Arch updates come as normal.

I tried to give Fedora a shot last year when my laptop's NIC died, but I couldn't figure out how to get the Wi-Fi driver compiled. I messed around with DNF, Yum, and probably yet another package manager but never ended up getting an internet connection after a few hours. On Arch, it took me about 2 hours to follow a pretty simple guide to getting my Wi-Fi drivers compiled.

I don't think I'll ever be able to use another distribution; Arch is the only one I've been able to figure out.

Hours to do what now? Sometimes I feel like using Mint and using most other distros is more like using a whole different OS. You install it, the stuff works, you start using it. Two hours? To compile a basic thing? Or worse? Gah. I don't have the time (or knowledge) for that nonsense.

To figure out how to do it. The guide was simple, but the process is not entirely intuitive and I screwed it up a few times by missing packages. Knowing how to do it properly now, it takes about 5 minutes to compile on a 2009 CPU.

Unfortunately the WI-Fi drivers are not mainlined, so you would have had to compile it on any distribution. https://github.com/RinCat/RTL88x2BU-Linux-Driver

I tried to follow the Github instructions on Fedora but couldn't get it to work, from memory. I just had no idea what to do, and couldn't find any easy way to get them working following Fedora's wiki.

This was exactly me, more than one year ago.

I was using Antergos and Arch distro through Zen installer for around 2 years. It was great most of the time but once every few months some little issue was arising. Not able to update/install some package because of some library version conflicts or similar. Probably AUR was also the cause of these bugs. When the system couldn't boot after another update, I decided to switch.

I found Fedora to be the perfect balance between bleeding edge and stability. Also Flatpak compensates for the AUR, or the least I personally have all the apps I need on Fedora with simple one-two clicks to install.

I'm glad Liam didn't go back to Ubuntu. Ubuntu, as far as I'm concerned, is no longer the reference for Linux desktop systems that it once was. The Snap daemon makes your startup slower.

By how much in real live? On my desktop system mounting (NFS) shares are by far the most costly startup activity. On my laptop... I mean once past the LUKS decryption we are talking about 8 to 9 seconds including the dreaded file system check.

And the Snap packages usually have much lower performance than the Flatpak versions. So why does Ubuntu keep pushing Snap when it's not competitive with Flatpak?

Again: What "lower performance"? The first startup is slower (and not even Canonical denies that). But a Firefox snap is just as fast as a deb one with JS benchmarks (BTTD). Blender seems to do just fine, despite being a snap package. I do have a fair share of Flatpaks as well (Hugin, KiCad, etc.) and they work perfectly fine, but this constant snap bashing is just... lame.

What I have also noticed is that their website where you can view the versions of packages is worthless: https://packages.ubuntu.com/focal/chromium-browser The Ubuntu LTS currently has Chromium version '100', not version 80.0.3987.

That's because it is a transitional package. It was introduced with Chromium 80 - since then Chromium has always been a Snap package. And it's actually smart: Should you use a repo which provides a Chromium 100 it will automatically replace the Snap package.

Well, the article says Arch, but I think it was EndeavourOS that Liam was on before he hopped on to Fedora. Indeed, it was his article about it that convinced me to make the same leap. I've been on Endeavour for about 2 or 3 months now. It's great - really enjoy it, and no breakages, whatsoever.

Specifically I used the EndeavourOS installer yes, but everything else on EndeavourOS is plain Arch, their extras are very minimal and all Arch updates come as normal.

There's no such thing as the "EndeavourOS installer", you were using EndeavourOS as it configures everything for you not in Arch's way, which is a DIY way, but as EndeavourOS devs pre-configured it for you, so you should alter your title accordingly.

Again, Arch is not EndeavourOS just because EndeavourOS gets Arch's updates.


Last edited by sudoer on 9 April 2022 at 2:35 pm UTC

Well, the article says Arch, but I think it was EndeavourOS that Liam was on before he hopped on to Fedora. Indeed, it was his article about it that convinced me to make the same leap. I've been on Endeavour for about 2 or 3 months now. It's great - really enjoy it, and no breakages, whatsoever.

Specifically I used the EndeavourOS installer yes, but everything else on EndeavourOS is plain Arch, their extras are very minimal and all Arch updates come as normal.

There's no such thing as the "EndeavourOS installer", you were using EndeavourOS as it configures everything for you not in Arch's way, which is a DIY way, but as EndeavourOS devs pre-configured it for you, so you should alter your title accordingly.

Again, Arch is not EndeavourOS because EndeavourOS gets Arch's updates.

Honestly, this is a level of pedantic that just doesn't help anyone. There is no special "Arch way", everyone has it done slightly differently - because that's Arch. EndeavourOS is 99% just an installer, with a few extras. Once installed, you're on Arch.

It's not 100% pure and holy Arch on the way it's initially setup, but everything comes from Arch including every single update - that's Arch enough for me. Feel free to argue it, I don't care, it's Arch.

Edit: added a note on EndeavourOS so the purists can be quiet ;)


Last edited by Liam Dawe on 9 April 2022 at 3:27 pm UTC

I've seen quite a bit of recent push for Fedora. I would argue it isn't an issue with a specific distro but Linux in general. I use Ubuntu LTS as a daily driver and boy there are problems.

Well, the article says Arch, but I think it was EndeavourOS that Liam was on before he hopped on to Fedora. Indeed, it was his article about it that convinced me to make the same leap. I've been on Endeavour for about 2 or 3 months now. It's great - really enjoy it, and no breakages, whatsoever.

Specifically I used the EndeavourOS installer yes, but everything else on EndeavourOS is plain Arch, their extras are very minimal and all Arch updates come as normal.

There's no such thing as the "EndeavourOS installer", you were using EndeavourOS as it configures everything for you not in Arch's way, which is a DIY way, but as EndeavourOS devs pre-configured it for you, so you should alter your title accordingly.

Again, Arch is not EndeavourOS because EndeavourOS gets Arch's updates.

Honestly, this is a level of pedantic that just doesn't help anyone. There is no special "Arch way", everyone has it done slightly differently - because that's Arch. EndeavourOS is 99% just an installer, with a few extras. Once installed, you're on Arch.

It's not 100% pure and holy Arch on the way it's initially setup, but everything comes from Arch including every single update - that's Arch enough for me. Feel free to argue it, I don't care, it's Arch.

It's also not relevant in this scenario, since EndeavourOS does not provide a configuration for Pipewire since by default it ships with PulseAudio still. So, the Pipewire configuration would have been exactly same on Arch and on EndeavourOS.

I use Fedora KDE for work too, though I still use Garuda Linux for my gaming PC, especially because it makes getting certain apps easier. Sometimes, the apps I want don't really have a Fedora version, and I don't want to deal with the workarounds, so the Arch-based Garuda Linux just works best for me for non-work occasion. For work, though? I just want something stable that is more reasonably updated - and my best option for that is Fedora.

I really hope more apps adopt Flatpak though - it's so annoying when they only have .deb or Snap option, no Flatpak or actual rpm to make using them on Fedora easier. I really don't want to bother with Distrobox or JuNest or manual build to deal with those issues, which is why it's a no-go for my gaming PC.

Again: What "lower performance"? The first startup is slower (and not even Canonical denies that). But a Firefox snap is just as fast as a deb one with JS benchmarks (BTTD). Blender seems to do just fine, despite being a snap package. I do have a fair share of Flatpaks as well (Hugin, KiCad, etc.) and they work perfectly fine, but this constant snap bashing is just... lame.

I've seen performance comparison from Firefox several times in the last few months, snap versus flatpak, and snap is always improbably crappy. Here's an example: https://www.reddit.com/r/FoundryVTT/comments/tnpkdx/firefox_snap_causing_cpu_and_fan_spikes_flatpak/

If the performance and stability aren't there, why force the technology?
It is telling that 'unsnap' is being developed by an old Canonical employee:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Ubuntu/comments/twwuid/a_new_tool_unsnap_helps_you_move_from_snaps_to/

Well, the post says "Just curious if anyone else experienced this. I haven't seen any similar postings."... (And he was on Ubuntu 20.10?) Anyway, I had it up on my laptop with a 22.04 Ubuntu and didn't experience any "anomalies".

What I have also noticed is that their website where you can view the versions of packages is worthless: https://packages.ubuntu.com/focal/chromium-browser The Ubuntu LTS currently has Chromium version '100', not version 80.0.3987.

That's because it is a transitional package. It was introduced with Chromium 80 - since then Chromium has always been a Snap package. And it's actually smart: Should you use a repo which provides a Chromium 100 it will automatically replace the Snap package.

Why are all these pages still kept online by Canonical, when it no longer contains useful information?

Because this very package has this very version. Go to "focal-updates" and it shows 1:85.0.4183.83-0ubuntu0.20.04.2 as the version. Exactly the same version Synaptic finds in the repos. So the web page is spot on (and presumably auto-generated from the apt database). This package does not provide Chromium - just a simple script which does something like "snap install chromium".

I have to say that after several years of using FreeBSD, I'm increasingly wondering why Ubuntu was designed.

Let's take a look at FIO, the gold standard for storage benchmarks:
https://openbenchmarking.org/embed.php?i=1901268-SP-ZFSBSDLIN95&sha=5ca0c1f&p=2
https://openbenchmarking.org/embed.php?i=1901268-SP-ZFSBSDLIN95&sha=12872ac&p=2
https://openbenchmarking.org/embed.php?i=1901268-SP-ZFSBSDLIN95&sha=49228e7&p=2

Network latency of FreeBSD is also better than that of Ubuntu.
ZFS has fewer bugs in FreeBSD compared to Ubuntu.
FreeBSD is a more consistent architecture and also has slightly higher security.
Docker is significantly less secure than FreeBSD Jails.
NginX runs faster on FreeBSD than on Ubuntu.
..

You can also game on FreeBSD:
https://www.freshports.org/games/homura/
https://www.freshports.org/games/linux-steam-utils/

Just about everything Ubuntu has done in the last 10 years has been a failure.
Unity, Mir, Touch,..

Now 'snaps'.

Why not just stop Ubuntu and switch to FreeBSD, the system that has been better than Ubuntu for performance, stability and security for the last 30 years. The system that, unlike Ubuntu, does very little or no idiotic 'innovations' and focuses on things that are really improvements.

Is this about Linux or Ubuntu? Because you always say "Ubuntu" but actually mean "Linux". And what's your point? If you think the improved performance of FreeBSD in certain benchmarks (as a frequent consumer of Phoronix I am well aware, that FreeBSD is occasionally faster in certain benchmarks) is that important - well, use FreeBSD. I work on my machine on a daily basis and I prefer my tools to be (a) available for my OS and (b) work hassle-free.
OTOH: *BSD is of course much more elitist than even Arch...

As someone very new to all things Linux, I ended up landing on the recently released Nobara Project by Glorious Eggroll. Sounds like it simplifies some of the on-boarding versus traditional Fedora spins. https://nobaraproject.org/

Small edit: That being said, it's not my daily driver. I've got a drive reserved for it to run games that have better performance on Linux, particularly but not limited to Elden Ring currently.


Last edited by JustinWood on 9 April 2022 at 4:52 pm UTC