I've been using Arch for the last 7-8 months and I think my love affair with it has already peaked.
Everything written here is true re: learning about Linux, having more control, straightforward architecture, bleeding edge software, etc.
But the instability factor eventually will bite you in the ass, and per Murphy's Law, often at the worst possible time. It's happened to me twice in this time span.
My solution is to use a separate data partition for all my files and install Arch and a more stable distro (Mint in my case) in different partitions. Both OSs link to the data partition and grab dotfiles and things from a git repo.
Arch is my preferred environment, with a tiling WM and everything painstakingly set up for my preferred workflow. But when it crashes, I can still use my workstation to get stuff done, and go about troubleshooting when I have free time.
Not really. Arch takes about 10 seconds less to boot up than Mint on my machine. Then there would be the question of having to wait for both the host OS and guest (virtual) OS to boot up.
It's a one-time expense, too, in terms of time. And there's the added benefit that you learn how to partition, how to mount, link, etc.
Everything written here is true re: learning about Linux, having more control, straightforward architecture, bleeding edge software, etc.
But the instability factor eventually will bite you in the ass, and per Murphy's Law, often at the worst possible time. It's happened to me twice in this time span.
My solution is to use a separate data partition for all my files and install Arch and a more stable distro (Mint in my case) in different partitions. Both OSs link to the data partition and grab dotfiles and things from a git repo.
Arch is my preferred environment, with a tiling WM and everything painstakingly set up for my preferred workflow. But when it crashes, I can still use my workstation to get stuff done, and go about troubleshooting when I have free time.