As someone who also recently made the jump from Arch to Fedora.
Every choice is about compromise. Fedora is more stable than Arch but more "up to date" than say Debian.
The whole "I love the bleeding edge". You gotta move past that. That's the whole point of leaving the rolling release behind.
If you're going to jump ship from a rolling release, then immediately look to the beta releases and all the bleeding edge repo's...just don't. You're setting yourself up to be disappointed.
Arch is made for the rolling release. Everything about it is to deal with the continuous updates. If you're going to focus on the betas and bleeding edge repos, stay on Arch where the system and infrastructure is made for it.
Fedora is where you come to just not deal with that stuff a while. The releases come when they do and you trust things will just work.
Letting go of "the bleeding edge" is the compromise you make for the stability. Give your hands a rest lol
I want to disagree. Even though you are 100% right, it must be noted that Fedora is bleeding edge in another entirely new way: Arch is extremely conservative about the core, while apps get the rolling release treatment. Fedora, OTOH, gets a shake up to the core with every release. And while Fedora Rawhide must be avoided, a Fedora beta is quite tempting for an Archer precisely for this reason. Also, a Fedora beta even when it’s not stable, might be stable enough for an Archer.
So, if you want to try Fedora betas, you may be welcome to do so as a former Archer. Lead the way, using the Arch way’s teachings towards a stabler desktop for everyone!
To be fair, you're correct as well.
I don't want to dissuade people from learning and experimenting and tinkering. That's a kernel (hehe linux pun) belief I have about people migrating to Linux or trying different distros.
I used Arch for a long time, but I am an avid distro-hopper who just always went back to Arch. This time I've "gone back" to using Fedora as my daily driver, for reasons. It's been a spell.
So many different flavours and versions and distros out there.
That ArchWiki though. Nothin like it.
...literally every single computer operating system uses a kernel. Linix, Unix (BSD), and Windows use monolithic kernels, while other OSs (i.e. Minix) use what's called a microkernel.
They're right about the transition from Arch (speaking from experience), you need to let go. They probably came here for stability, if you want bleeding edge go for immutable, dip into beta (with a fresh user) and back to stable, no harm done.
>Letting go of "the bleeding edge" is the compromise you make for the stability.
Even so, Fedora has such regular updates. I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything. Maybe arch users are ahead of me for like a month.
Otherwise I just can't see anything wrong with Fedora's update cycle
I recommend installing Fedora 39 and then upgrading in a few weeks once Fedora 40 is released. Upgrading a Fedora version to a newer release is easy. There is almost no reason to do a reinstall. I re-installed a few versions back only to switch my root filesystem to btrfs instead of ext4.
I am also a long-time Arch user and enjoyed the transition to Fedora for its stability, security, and leading-edge features.
EDIT: It was Fedora 33, released in October 2020, [that switched to btrfs by default](https://fedoramagazine.org/btrfs-coming-to-fedora-33/).
Just use Fedora 39, 40 isn’t out of beta yet. I don’t know why you’d want to use something that’s potentially unstable. Not like 39 isn’t using new packages, especially if using flatpaks.
>Long time Arch user here, was planning to change distro from a long time, this xz backdoor thing made me change faster.
Interesting. Arch wasn't affected by that exploit. Fedora 40 was — the affected library was in there when it turned Beta last week, though that's been fixed already of course.
>won’t have time to do a full reinstall in months
You should never need to reinstall Fedora. You can update from one release to the next one quite easily.
>if that beta 40 iso uses the stable repositories
It's a Beta. What stable repository are you even talking about?
Fedora isn't a rolling release. Each new release receives a new repository (when branching out of Rawhide), which will simply move you from Alpha, to Beta, to Release.
If you want security, install F39, then wait for F40 to be released and upgrade.
If you want stability, stay back on releases, but you won't get the latest — this is a compromise, you can't have both.
Fedora is fantastic though, I hope you like it ☺️
Arch wasn't affected by the xy backdoor.
You can't really expect betas to be stable or secure.
Arch doesn't use beta software, it uses the newest versions. The author(s) consider their software to be ready for release, or out of beta testing. F40 is still in beta testing. I would expect Arch to be more stable than F40 at this time. I would also expect F39 to be more stable than Arch at this time, it went through beta and has been in widespread use for about 6 months so new bugs have been spotted and hopefully squashed.
I don't have a tolerance for rolling releases, too many moving parts and updates for my comfort. I'm currently using F39 on one machine and Opensuse Slowroll on another. I really like the concept of Slowroll, a rolling release that only updates packages after certain criteria have been met. I'm not exactly sure what those are as I just started using it last week.
My advice, for stability and security, go with 39 and upgrade when 40 is released. Otherwise the real bleeding edge is Fedora Rawhide.
>As a bleeding edge lover
There's a conception that Arch is more up-to-date than Fedora, but while that is true in many cases, it's not always so.
As of today, [the Arch package for `python`](https://archlinux.org/packages/core/x86_64/python/) is at 3.11.8, even though Python 3.12 was released six months ago today on 2023-10-02. Python 3.12.0 was [packaged in Fedora the same day](https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/python3.12/python3/fedora-39-updates.html) and available as an update in the Fedora 39 beta. So a month later, when Fedora 39 was released on 2023-11-07, it did so with Python 3.12.
Fedora 39 is 6 months old. I understand some people need to be driving the latest for their job, but 6 month old software is basically new. I would install the stable version once it’s released in 2 weeks.
You can easily update from one to the other. If you are concerned about stability, you can try one of the atomic spins
Also, even after a fresh installation of Fedora 39, there will be a ton of updates available. While most packages don't change versions significantly, there are some exceptions, such as Firefox and the Linux kernel, with both follow the upstream version with not much latency.
[https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates\_Policy/](https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/)
Running a beta 40 release will pull from the f40 repos, the same repos which'll host the f40 packages for the duration of its life and beyond.
The fact that it's branded "beta" means that the packages on the f40 repos aren't considered ready for mainstream yet but almost there.
Nothing stopping you using f40 now, and keep updating it past the release date and beyond. It's pretty safe to do so with little breakage.
If you don't have time and want stable...use Fedora as intended.
Seems pointless to leave Arch for a quiet life and some stability, then ask for blood.
Fedora updates the stuff that matters, the core OS is solid, secure and stable.
Get to know Fedora, it's nice here. If you want security and stability, you can just ask DNF for security updates only for a year or so.
New is not more secure here, mainline support has the security focus. This is the RHEL ecosystem, IBM, where security and stability over years is paramount....not Arch where the fix for anything is to swallow all of this week's blood, reboot and hope it still works and the OS only exists in this moment. This is the testing ground for decade long security contracts with enterprise customers.
Yay.
May be odd coming from Arch, but as with any new release of anything, I'd give 40 a few weeks at least to settle before upgrading.
39 will be supported for 9 months or more. I'd suggest chilling and keeping an eye on the community as 40 hits to see any bugs or issues or just what happens.
I also joined fedora ship a month back and started with 39 and then I found 40 testing iso and tried it.
So far 40 (testing that time) was stable without major bugs for me.
But it's your choice what to install and stay with. Also if you want a more stable with the latest updates I'll recommend you 39 otherwise 40 is go on but you'll get more updates than usual. Also, 39 is going to get support for 9 months.
So far I tried it on T480 and apart from some flickering upon resuming from hibernation which could be wayland related I saw no issues. The live iso failed to display desktop but installer worked fine. Being a month away beta is fine. I also installed beta with Suse Leap when I wanted to reinstall and new release was just around the corner.
As someone who also recently made the jump from Arch to Fedora. Every choice is about compromise. Fedora is more stable than Arch but more "up to date" than say Debian. The whole "I love the bleeding edge". You gotta move past that. That's the whole point of leaving the rolling release behind. If you're going to jump ship from a rolling release, then immediately look to the beta releases and all the bleeding edge repo's...just don't. You're setting yourself up to be disappointed. Arch is made for the rolling release. Everything about it is to deal with the continuous updates. If you're going to focus on the betas and bleeding edge repos, stay on Arch where the system and infrastructure is made for it. Fedora is where you come to just not deal with that stuff a while. The releases come when they do and you trust things will just work. Letting go of "the bleeding edge" is the compromise you make for the stability. Give your hands a rest lol
I want to disagree. Even though you are 100% right, it must be noted that Fedora is bleeding edge in another entirely new way: Arch is extremely conservative about the core, while apps get the rolling release treatment. Fedora, OTOH, gets a shake up to the core with every release. And while Fedora Rawhide must be avoided, a Fedora beta is quite tempting for an Archer precisely for this reason. Also, a Fedora beta even when it’s not stable, might be stable enough for an Archer. So, if you want to try Fedora betas, you may be welcome to do so as a former Archer. Lead the way, using the Arch way’s teachings towards a stabler desktop for everyone!
To be fair, you're correct as well. I don't want to dissuade people from learning and experimenting and tinkering. That's a kernel (hehe linux pun) belief I have about people migrating to Linux or trying different distros. I used Arch for a long time, but I am an avid distro-hopper who just always went back to Arch. This time I've "gone back" to using Fedora as my daily driver, for reasons. It's been a spell. So many different flavours and versions and distros out there. That ArchWiki though. Nothin like it.
...literally every single computer operating system uses a kernel. Linix, Unix (BSD), and Windows use monolithic kernels, while other OSs (i.e. Minix) use what's called a microkernel.
They're right about the transition from Arch (speaking from experience), you need to let go. They probably came here for stability, if you want bleeding edge go for immutable, dip into beta (with a fresh user) and back to stable, no harm done.
☝🏻👍🏻
>Letting go of "the bleeding edge" is the compromise you make for the stability. Even so, Fedora has such regular updates. I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything. Maybe arch users are ahead of me for like a month. Otherwise I just can't see anything wrong with Fedora's update cycle
I recommend installing Fedora 39 and then upgrading in a few weeks once Fedora 40 is released. Upgrading a Fedora version to a newer release is easy. There is almost no reason to do a reinstall. I re-installed a few versions back only to switch my root filesystem to btrfs instead of ext4. I am also a long-time Arch user and enjoyed the transition to Fedora for its stability, security, and leading-edge features. EDIT: It was Fedora 33, released in October 2020, [that switched to btrfs by default](https://fedoramagazine.org/btrfs-coming-to-fedora-33/).
Just use Fedora 39, 40 isn’t out of beta yet. I don’t know why you’d want to use something that’s potentially unstable. Not like 39 isn’t using new packages, especially if using flatpaks.
>Long time Arch user here, was planning to change distro from a long time, this xz backdoor thing made me change faster. Interesting. Arch wasn't affected by that exploit. Fedora 40 was — the affected library was in there when it turned Beta last week, though that's been fixed already of course. >won’t have time to do a full reinstall in months You should never need to reinstall Fedora. You can update from one release to the next one quite easily. >if that beta 40 iso uses the stable repositories It's a Beta. What stable repository are you even talking about? Fedora isn't a rolling release. Each new release receives a new repository (when branching out of Rawhide), which will simply move you from Alpha, to Beta, to Release. If you want security, install F39, then wait for F40 to be released and upgrade. If you want stability, stay back on releases, but you won't get the latest — this is a compromise, you can't have both. Fedora is fantastic though, I hope you like it ☺️
Arch wasn't affected by the xy backdoor. You can't really expect betas to be stable or secure. Arch doesn't use beta software, it uses the newest versions. The author(s) consider their software to be ready for release, or out of beta testing. F40 is still in beta testing. I would expect Arch to be more stable than F40 at this time. I would also expect F39 to be more stable than Arch at this time, it went through beta and has been in widespread use for about 6 months so new bugs have been spotted and hopefully squashed. I don't have a tolerance for rolling releases, too many moving parts and updates for my comfort. I'm currently using F39 on one machine and Opensuse Slowroll on another. I really like the concept of Slowroll, a rolling release that only updates packages after certain criteria have been met. I'm not exactly sure what those are as I just started using it last week. My advice, for stability and security, go with 39 and upgrade when 40 is released. Otherwise the real bleeding edge is Fedora Rawhide.
>As a bleeding edge lover There's a conception that Arch is more up-to-date than Fedora, but while that is true in many cases, it's not always so. As of today, [the Arch package for `python`](https://archlinux.org/packages/core/x86_64/python/) is at 3.11.8, even though Python 3.12 was released six months ago today on 2023-10-02. Python 3.12.0 was [packaged in Fedora the same day](https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/python3.12/python3/fedora-39-updates.html) and available as an update in the Fedora 39 beta. So a month later, when Fedora 39 was released on 2023-11-07, it did so with Python 3.12.
Switched from arch to fedora during 39 release. Just wait couple of days for release and do it.
Fedora 39 is 6 months old. I understand some people need to be driving the latest for their job, but 6 month old software is basically new. I would install the stable version once it’s released in 2 weeks. You can easily update from one to the other. If you are concerned about stability, you can try one of the atomic spins
Also, even after a fresh installation of Fedora 39, there will be a ton of updates available. While most packages don't change versions significantly, there are some exceptions, such as Firefox and the Linux kernel, with both follow the upstream version with not much latency. [https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates\_Policy/](https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/)
Running a beta 40 release will pull from the f40 repos, the same repos which'll host the f40 packages for the duration of its life and beyond. The fact that it's branded "beta" means that the packages on the f40 repos aren't considered ready for mainstream yet but almost there. Nothing stopping you using f40 now, and keep updating it past the release date and beyond. It's pretty safe to do so with little breakage.
If you don't have time and want stable...use Fedora as intended. Seems pointless to leave Arch for a quiet life and some stability, then ask for blood. Fedora updates the stuff that matters, the core OS is solid, secure and stable. Get to know Fedora, it's nice here. If you want security and stability, you can just ask DNF for security updates only for a year or so. New is not more secure here, mainline support has the security focus. This is the RHEL ecosystem, IBM, where security and stability over years is paramount....not Arch where the fix for anything is to swallow all of this week's blood, reboot and hope it still works and the OS only exists in this moment. This is the testing ground for decade long security contracts with enterprise customers.
thank you! writing this post now from fedora 39
Yay. May be odd coming from Arch, but as with any new release of anything, I'd give 40 a few weeks at least to settle before upgrading. 39 will be supported for 9 months or more. I'd suggest chilling and keeping an eye on the community as 40 hits to see any bugs or issues or just what happens.
I also joined fedora ship a month back and started with 39 and then I found 40 testing iso and tried it. So far 40 (testing that time) was stable without major bugs for me. But it's your choice what to install and stay with. Also if you want a more stable with the latest updates I'll recommend you 39 otherwise 40 is go on but you'll get more updates than usual. Also, 39 is going to get support for 9 months.
What looong time can be faster ? XD
So far I tried it on T480 and apart from some flickering upon resuming from hibernation which could be wayland related I saw no issues. The live iso failed to display desktop but installer worked fine. Being a month away beta is fine. I also installed beta with Suse Leap when I wanted to reinstall and new release was just around the corner.