Skip Navigation

Fedora, Arch, or EndeavourOS?

Hi, I was here and asked about a few distros already, so here's a quick summary of my situation:

I'm thinking about what distro to put onto my new Laptop, which will be used for University, Work, and just general daily usage. I am currently using EndeavourOS on my main PC and have been decently satisfied, but I want to experiment more. I've already asked if Arch was fine for this situation, to which the answer was a general "Yes, but keep x in mind" and I've asked about NixOS, where the answer was generally a no.

I've been looking around a bit more, and now I'm kind of curious about Fedora, specifically the KDE spin (or i3, I haven't quite decided). It seems to be cutting edge, compared to Arch's (and by extension EndeavourOS's) bleeding edge, and I'm wondering what you all think of it. From what I can gather it has basically all traits which people used to enjoy in Ubuntu, before Canonical dropped the ball on that. While it's not rolling release, the stability improvements and user experience compared to something like Arch, or even a more comfortable fork like EndeavourOS, seem quite decent, but in your experience, does that make up for the lack of the AUR and reduced applicability of the Arch Wiki?

I'm curious to hear about your experiences and recommendations!

Edit: I feel like I need to clarify, I know about the difference between EndeavourOS and Arch, I mostly just brought it up as a note that I am somewhat familiar with arch-based systems, and as a question of if it'd be stupid to just go with raw Arch, as EndeavourOS is basically the same, but with a more comfortable installer. I should have specified that more clearly in the first place, my apologies.

67 comments
  • Nothing beats the Arch wiki, to be honest. One of the best and broadest collections of useful information around the web. And since Arch is not-too-modified in relation to upstream, all of the information is usable for most a lot of other distributions, too.

    And yes: I’m using Arch, btw.

    To be more specific: I’m running Arch with Hyprland (a tiling compositor for Wayland) on my DELL XPS 13 without any issues, running Arch with Openbox (X11) on my main computer since over a decade without any major issues (device is used for gaming, multimedia, video and image editing and screen recording), and on all devices I serve something from.

    Since I run Arch as a server (had it as communication server, as DHCP/DNS server, as VPN endpoint on a Raspberry Pi, and as a gaming server, currently on my main server it’s used as host for a Docker setup), I can tell you, you don’t need to worry about any real issues regarding stability and performance. Arch is way less bleeding edge as non-Arch users think. Just update regularly every 2-3 weeks at least, and check the news before doing so.

    I’m curious to hear about your experiences and recommendations!

    It boils down to what effort you want to put into it.

    If university and work usage is mainly running productivity stuff like some type of text processing or using web-based applications you likely won’t ever have any issues. If you’re constantly switching environments, need to run specific apps (maybe even 32-bit software), constantly use different video outputs, tons of different BT devices, etc. 
 well 
 Arch is of course capable of everything the bigger distributions have to offer by default (all the nice “magic” stuff that happens automatically in the background), you just need to set everything up by yourself.

    I might be biased towards Arch, but maybe just try if it fits your intended purpose and if you’re willing to set up everything at least once before using it.

  • My vote would be Fedora, too. I've been hopping between distros for 16 years now. Funnily enough, I switched from Arch to Fedora.
    And it just works, no broken dependencies or breaking a sweat when you forgot to update for two weeks.

    If you can get used to the concept of an immutable file system (as discussed by @GuentherAmanita) + flatpaks, it is really a smooth system without hassle. You should upgrade to the next version every 6 months - worked flawlessly for me the last two times (you should do backups before obviously).

    Lack of AUR could be a thing - how much do you use it? I would say, that is the only weak point for Fedora regarding your requirements.

    For me, it's the perfect balance between recent packages , stability, and user experience.

    Please let us know what you decided and why - I am curious to hear about your reasons!

    • After reading all this, and generally being predisposed towards Arch since my experience with EndeavourOS has been rather comfortable so far1, I'd say I've less been rationally convinced of using it, but rather not deterred enough. So I think I'll just go with Arch, but make sure to keep my home folder in a separate partition, so I can bail if needed, with Fedora as my preferred backup.

      1: Well, I say it's been comfortable for me, and that's true, but a friend of mine who installed EndeavourOS at the same time as me recently booted his pc up to find a terminal staring back at him. He says he didn't do anything weird, and didn't even update, but who knows. If I understood him correctly, reinstalling (one of) the Kernel(s) (I think he has two installed, one as a backup) fixed the issue. Problem is that this takes time, and when you're not home, with shitty or possibly no wifi, that's gonna be a big problem.

      • Cheers for letting me know!
        if your comfortable with it, go for it -I think that's the important part.

        You should be good if you keep your system updated, a seperate home partition is a good idea.
        In the end, we all use (GNU/)Linux. I think the differences are often exaggerated here. Sure, your package manager may vary but under the hood they tend to be quite similar (apart from being immutable or other special cases).

        Have fun with Endeavour, fellow wanderer and thanks for the thread, it was a quite interesting read!

  • I just switched from Arch to Endeavour to Fedora! My 2 cents:

    • Arch is like a barebones Lego box without instructions, only a set of pictures. Sure, you get a paper telling you how to ensamble a basic OS, but what to do of it is up to you. For example, you might want a firewall there, right? or maybe a systemd timer to trim your ssd? IDK, you can guess it on your own. The pieces are there, it's up to you to decide what to use.
    • Endeavour is like that same Lego box where someone handled you the manual from another themed box. If you installed Arch on your own, and felt like you might've missed something, or something feels off, EndeavourOS just gives you the ensambled set for you to play with. The problem? No problem, really. It feels like a greatly configured Arch installation.
    • Fedora feels like a themed box. You don't have whole lot of bricks like that other unthemed box (AUR), but damn, everything just works and it works great. Only caveat is that non free stuff (drivers, codecs, etc) require that you input some commands (but really, every linux distro requires this still). So far, my experience is between "wow, I didn't know you could do/have this! Must've missed it in the arch wiki" and "damn, there's no easy way to install X in Fedora? I miss the AUR :("
  • I think you want something boring. Boring, in terms of "it just works", which is essential for school. You want to focus on learning, not troubleshooting.

    I've been looking around a bit more, and now I'm kind of curious about Fedora, specifically the KDE spin (or i3, I haven't quite decided).

    Use Fedora Atomic (immutable versions of Workstation/ KDE spin, etc.). Especially uBlue. It's a community edition on universal-blue.org, which features very vanilla images of Silverblue for example, but with some QoL-changes, many inofficial DEs/ TWMs, and much more.

    The cool thing is, you can just rebase to whatever spin you like, e.g. KDE and i3 and don't need to decide. It's like a reinstall, without actually loosing data.

    It's also extremely robust (barely breakable) and in general doesn't get in your way.

    While it's not rolling release, the stability improvements and user experience compared to something like Arch, or even a more comfortable fork like EndeavourOS, seem quite decent

    It's not only decent, it's great! Everything "just werksℱ" and it's very very reliable.
    In terms of stability (update schedule) it's a great mix between very well tested, but not stale.
    I wouldn't like to update daily like on Arch.

    but in your experience, does that make up for the lack of the AUR?

    The cool thing is, you don't loose anything.
    I, for example, have an Arch container in Distrobox, and I use it all the time. I even have access to the AUR and all Arch packages on my image based Fedora install.
    This gives me bleeding edge software, especially for the terminal, without risking breaking my host OS. Arch seems to be too high maintenance for me, and I'm not willing to spend my time troubleshooting.

  • Disclaimer: I am by no means a Linux expert, but figured I could give my 2 cents.

    I recently installed Fedora on one of my machines that I mainly use for web browsing, file downloading, and general office like activities. And I don't have much experience with it yet. I specifically went the KDE route, as I am a huge fan of what KDE has to offer. That being said, for the most part everything "just works." Sorry I don't have much more to say about Fedora, but I will report back as I use it more.

    The distro I have used for a few years now that I quite enjoy is Arch. What drew me to Arch was the fact that it is bleeding edge. That being said, as with anything bleeding edge, you should have backups and other contingency plans for failure. That should be done for all systems, but doubly so with things that are bleeding edge I would argue. Arch has been quite stable for me, but I would say that it is more tailored to someone who is looking to tinker. On my desktop, I unfortunately still run windows due to some proprietary hardware and software that I have yet to figure out how to get working within Arch. The biggest issue I have had with Arch over the few years that I have been using it comes down to the Nvidia graphics card I use in my desktop. I know not everyone has had the same issues I have had with Nvidia, but getting wayland working on it, as well as just general multi-monitor issues, have sort of taken the wind out of my sails for linux on my desktop computer.

    Here are a few resources I would recommend checking out to help you make your decision [https://distrochooser.de/](Distro Chooser) - Distro Chooser asks questions about what you are looking for and the like to help you pick a distro to try. [https://linux-hardware.org/](Linux Hardware) - This is Linux Hardware website and is quite handy for looking into getting drivers,and checking to see if there are known bugs for specific hardware you are trying to use on a Linux system.

  • Fedora has lots of weird bugs in my experience, but some people seem to love it.

  • Consider immutable, I use ublue-kinoite (fedora spin 'with batteries') and use a distrobox Arch for the AUR and development, best of both worlds, rock stable main OS, cutting edge rolling release as needed. I've been very happy, and if you're using for uni and work, reliability should be a consideration.

67 comments