Linux

14047 readers

172 users here now

A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)

Also, check out:

Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

Ategon@programming.dev

anzo@programming.dev

dwraf_of_ignorance@programming.dev

Users of Arch-based distros, why don't you use pure Arch? (ani.social)

submitted 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) by kiri@ani.social to c/linux@programming.dev

126 comments fedilink hide all child comments

(No provocation)

I see these reasons:

newbie
lazy (don't wanna edit config files etc.)
unique features (like assistant/toolbox, some optimizations like in cachyos)
wanna check how different systems are set up (that's rather distrohopping)

Personally, I used manjaro i3 when I was beigginer and wanted to see how tiling WM should be configured (check out ranger config, for example). But after some time, I don't see reasons why not to just customize pure arch (same with debian and debian-based distros).

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] victorz@lemmy.world 28 points 4 days ago (30 children)

I think this is a common misconception about Arch, that it requires continuous tinkering. I see that word used so much, too, "tinkering".

What I've been doing for the past decade is just install Arch, set things up the way I like, and then just keep everything up-to-date as I go. Of course, I install and uninstall things as I try new software, but the OS itself? Zero tinkering. I just use it.

Especially if you only game on it and stuff like that, then simple plain Arch is great. Lean system that just works. Install the things you want and enjoy.

I got two kids and way too many hobbies so I can relate to not wanting to fiddle with the OS. I run Arch on my two home desktop PCs, and my two work laptops. 🤷‍♂️ Zero maintenance.

Enjoy!

[–] Bimfred@lemmy.world 24 points 4 days ago (15 children)

I see what you mean. But in order to reach the point where Arch is configured and my machine Just Works, I would have to learn how to install Arch, what packages I need, what are the ups and downs of the various packages for handling the same things, resolve any conflicts I accidentally created, and then I can get to installing the things I actually want. It's a lot of work and time that isn't going into something I consider fun.

Arch is great for people who want to build their OS to be precisely what they want it to be. I happen to not be one of those people.

[–] wltr@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 4 days ago (11 children)

Why Arch based distro then? Why not, say, Fedora? Debian. Popos.

[–] nevyn@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 days ago

Neither fedora, or debian are logical/user friendly to begin with. I have not looked at popos for a few years, and do not remember it.

load more comments (10 replies)

load more comments (13 replies)

load more comments (27 replies)