I feel like Arch memes come from the fact that Arch - by default - doesn't offer any fully fledged installer. You kind of build it yourself and configure everything manually. It's something that's become more tedious than difficult thanks to the amazing Wiki, which describes every step of the way.

There's still a bunch of hilarious "Arch Greybeards" going "ah, you used archinstall, so can you truly say you installed Arch" but otherwise a lot of users are not that technical.

But, yeah, I decided to switch to something Arch-based because, like, 80% of the issues I had with Kubuntu/TuxedoOS eventually ended with someone linking an Arch Wiki article.

You'll have to decide how user friendly the archwiki docs are for yourself. I find most of it pretty useful but sometimes it can get techy, or get confusing about versions/updates for llatest changes and so on.

It's probably better than any other linux dox in my opinion. But that bar is not exactly high.

Then again I don't know if windows even has documentation at all - I assume they replaced it with coprolite.

The wiki can be rough at some times, but you are guaranteed to learn a shit ton about Linux Ehen reading it. It gives you the commands you have to copy/paste most of the time, so its not to bad.

yeh at first i was like why all Arch users reference the wiki like its their Bible. Until I use Arch and troubleshoot myself, i would know how detail it is. You can find basically.everything about Linux there.

The downside? They need to structure the layout better. It is soooooo easy to misread or skip over stuff.