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.

  • Guenther_Amanita@feddit.de
    48·
    10 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.

    • lily33@lemm.ee
      101·
      10 months ago

      Actually, both Arch and NixOS are pretty reliable, and won’t just break out of nowhere, leaving your computer unusable.

      • penquin@lemm.ee
        71·
        10 months ago

        It’s kinda sad that Arch has this “unstable” reputation, while it is very solid distro. I’ve been running it on my laptop for a long time and I honestly don’t even remember the last time it broke. Thing literally just works.

      • Guenther_Amanita@feddit.de
        2·
        10 months ago

        Yeah, of course. You’re right.

        Nix is kind-of-immutable, and you can always roll back to your old build if necessary.

        But Arch on the other hand is notorious to “just break” if you don’t exactly know what you’re doing. Of course it will work perfectly reliable (apart from the few paper cuts you get when using bleeding edge stuff) if you are experienced, and optimally, if you set it up with BTRFS and Snapper/ Timeshift.

        But honestly, unpopular opinion, I absolutely see no reason to use Arch today. The only exception is the DIY-aspect, which I totally understand and respect. But, for every other use case, there are better options out there, may it be Tumbleweed or Nix for a rolling release, Arch in Distrobox on Silverblue, whatever. It sounds like way too much effort for what I would get. But each to their own.

      • hglman@lemmy.mlEnglish
        13·
        10 months ago

        Sure, but when you need to add something new, it will be a lot of effort.

        • sickday@kbin.social
          5·
          10 months ago

          It would be the exact same amount of effort you’d use to get new software on other distros. Both Arch and NixOS have very straightforward methods of installing new software that aren’t any more difficult than doing so on Debian or some other distro. Both Arch and NixOS support independent package managers like flatpak and snap + they support Appimages.

          I’d also add that OP doesn’t even need to use NixOS to use nix packages, whereas Arch or Debian would require systems based on those distros. So if anything NixOS tries to make it very easy to add and configure software. Where does all the effort come in?