73
Arch or NixOS? (lemmy.blahaj.zone)

I've been here a week ago already asking if Arch would be fine for a laptop used for university, as stability is a notable factor in that and I'm already using EndeavourOS at home, but now I'm curious about something else too - what about Arch vs NixOS?

I heard that NixOS is pretty solid, as due to the one file for your entire system format you can both copy and restore your system easily whenever, apart from your normal files and application configurations of course.

Are there any major downsides to NixOS compared to Arch apart from the Arch Wiki being a bit less relevant? I'd also lose access to the AUR, but admittedly I don't think I've ever actually needed it for anything, it's just nice to have. Also, since NixOS has both rolling release and static release and you can mix and match if you wanna get packages from unstable or not, I'm not losing Arch's bleeding edge, which is nice.

(page 2) 41 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Drito@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I encountered limitations on NixOS, as instance Ly display manager, or using an app compiled by myself. Maybe there are solution but it is not always simple. Archlinux is way more flexible. Updates can theorically breaks the system , but since one year I never broke Arch despite updates on 200+ packages.

Notice I favors minimalist graphic environments (WM that don't need updates ) and minimalists apps as much as possible, such as MPV and nsxiv. I don't fear of some keyboard shortcuts. This philosophy probably helps Arch updates. Sometimes I had problem on apps (Inkscape and Dolphin-emu), I use appimages for them. Nothing is perfect, but Arch put lighter roadblocks than NixOS.

[-] Helix@feddit.de 2 points 11 months ago

If you want to make your OS to a hobby, choose NixOS.

If you want a system that just works, use Kinoite or Debian.

If you want cutting edge software but fear Arch/Endeavour is prone to breakage, consider doing file system snapshots e.g. with snapper which you can boot into.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] furycd001@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago

All Linux distros can be unstable & really it all comes down to how you use your system....

[-] Astaroth@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Disclaimer: I only tried NixOS for less than a month when I was a complete Linux noob, I have since then been daily driving Arch Linux for about 2 years now.


 

For me, at least on the surface level, NixOS just felt like Arch Linux, with more similarities than differences.

What was nice about NixOS was the single config file for everything, ~~although iirc I had to reboot every time for it to be applied while with Arch you can just install something and run it immediately.~~

Edit: I either remembered it wrong or I was doing it wrong because you don't have to reboot the whole system according to the reply from hallettj.

 

What I didn't like however was all the packages that got installed (through the list in the config file) had really strange directories which I couldn't find easily.

like on Arch the packages and the executables are basically all at /usr/lib/ and /usr/bin/ and iirc it was pretty much the same on NixOS, except on Arch I'll have usr/lib/firefox but on nix it would be usr/lib/u123uadqasd782341kasjhiu3sh932s9sdasdsapzxcqw-firefox

 

Another thing is that it works great for everything you install through the Nix config file, but it's not necessarily going to clean up any files created by programs that got installed through it when you remove the packages from the config file.

Like say you have installed steam and then you install some game through steam, well that game wasn't added through the config file so there's no guarantee that if you decide to remove steam that you will also remove whatever the programs steam installed or if they created some new files somewhere.

 

Of course the same thing already happens on other OSes as well, so you could say that it's an upside that Nix is better at cleaning up after itself whenever you remove something, but also because it's supposed to all be controlled through a single config it just feels that much worse when you have to hunt down some file somewhere.


 

Again these are mostly my anecdotes from 2 years ago when I was a complete noob. Maybe I wouldn't have any issues if I tried it today. And chances are I was just trying to do something you shouldn't even be doing.

Plus at the start I used KDE Plasma 5 on Nix and Arch, maybe it will go better if I use i3wm on NixOS like I've been doing for a year and half or so on Arch now.

 

At least I'm pretty sure that having daily driven Arch for 2 years now I would have much better chances with NixOS now than when I tried it with 0 experience on Linux.

So since you've already got the experience from using EndeavorOS you might not have any big problems using NixOS, or at least learn how it works pretty fast.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] warmaster@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Arch based distros are easy AF. I've been on Linux for 2 years, I've tried 10+ distros, and Arch has been the easiest for me, and stable as it gets, while allowing me to get the latest drivers needed for gaming.

I've been using Crystal Linux, but got tired of it's CLI only package helper, and since then I've moved to Manjaro KDE.

Whatever you chose, make sure you get automatic BTRFS snapshots, so you can roll back at boot whenever you wreck it.

I've read here on Lemmy that NixOS is a great concept but the execution leaves a lot to be desired, stating that it's overly complicated and documentation is lacking.

If you only care about stability then you should go with Debian. If instead you want something that limits you so that you can't easily wreck it, you could use an immutable distro like Vanilla OS, Fedora Silverblue, BlendOS or Ubuntu Core Desktop.

[-] LeFantome@programming.dev 0 points 11 months ago

If you already using EndeavourOS, you are already using Arch. So it is a very odd question. You could remove the maybe 12 EndeavourOS packages and comment out the EndeavourOS repositories if you want to go truly vanilla Arch. Out of the 80,000 packages Arch makes available to you, about two-dozen are EndeavourOS specific. Once installed, they are effectively the same OS.

So, you are just asking if it worth it for an Arch user to move to NixOS.

From what I can tell, the killer feature of NixOS is rolling out a config to multiple machines. Is that worth a switch to you?

The other big attraction of both Arch and Nix is the huge package library but if you do not use the AUR today, that does not matter to you either.

[-] noli@programming.dev 1 points 11 months ago

The killer feature is declarative system management. Reproducible systems is just one of the resulting properties. You want to just try out KDE for a week coming from gnome? Good luck getting rid of all the bloat when switching back on arch. You want to run a program once but not necessarily have it installed on your system? You can do that with nixos. You messed something up and your system now doesn't boot? You can go back to a previous iteration with nixos, no need to find your liveUSB to start messing with chrooting and stuff. Ever find yourself asking where the configuration file for is so you can edit it? The answer is /etc/configuration.nix Ever had to merge older configs with newer ones because the software updated? (If no, you haven't been using arch for long) why would you need to do that? You declaratively specified how you want your system to behave and nixos will figure out how to translate that to the new config.

And that's just the "killer" features I use on a day to day basis

[-] TCB13@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Neither, rock solid Debian + flatpak for the latest software.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] penquin@lemm.ee -3 points 11 months ago

My honest opinion? Neither. Just go with something that works out of the box like Linux mint until you're done with school then you'll have time to mess with your system. That's what I did for a friend of mine when he went to college. Gave him a laptop with mint on it and never heard a single complaint from him. It has everything he needs. Focus on school now and worry about distros later.

[-] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 2 points 11 months ago

I have to agree, if you're late or have assignments that don't work correctly because of your special Arch/Nix install, you're going to be in for a very rough time. College is when you need to focus on learning exactly what is prescribed by the professors and instructors. Anything else you learn is secondary, and your free time is best spent on extracurriculars and trying to make friends because thats the stuff that's really hard to do after college. Y'know what's not hard to do after college? Scavenge a junk computer for next to nothing and install NixOS and Arch on it

[-] penquin@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago

I guess I'm not crazy after all for looking out for OP. I am getting downvoted for it. 😁

[-] thayer@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 months ago

Not crazy at all. Came here to say the same thing. My vote would be to pick a distro that'll let you focus on the schoolwork. Debian, Fedora, Ubuntu, or even just Linux Mint.

[-] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 1 points 11 months ago

My instance has downvotes disabled so as far as I can see you have a positive score :)

[-] penquin@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago

That's pretty nice. I don't really care about downvotes, especially on Lemmy. They don't mean anything anyway.

[-] noddy@beehaw.org 1 points 11 months ago

I don't know about everyone else, but I had a lot more spare time to tinker with linux when I was a student than after, having a full time job. But I guess if you only have the one computer and need it to work, then tinker in a VM or something. Don't wait with tinkering and learning about linux if it is interresting to you and something you want to spend time on. You might not have the time for it in a few years.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Guenther_Amanita@feddit.de -4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Neither of both.

Both are more on the tinkerer-side, and for university you need something reliable and easy to use in my eyes.

And that might be Fedora Silverblue/ Atomic (or universal-blue.org to be more precise for QOL-tweaks).
It is definitely more simple, stable (release cycle) and also more reliable, since there's only one base (Fedora packages + your DE), and therefore less configuration variability.

I'd also lose access to the AUR

No, you wouldn't. Neither on Nix, nor on Fedora Atomic. Especially on Silverblue you layer and containerise a lot, and you can always use the pre-installed and self updating Distrobox to install Arch and use the AUR. That's also what I do, and it works fine, even though I almost never feel the urge to use it.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2023
73 points (86.1% liked)

Linux

48334 readers
640 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS