CallMeAl comments on Users of Arch-based distros, why don't you use pure Arch?

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

submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by kiri@ani.social to c/linux@programming.dev

127 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).

[–] CallMeAl@piefed.zip 2 points 2 months ago (5 children)

Thanks for the response and the clarification.

I haven't run Windows in 25 years and I no plans to. I've actually been using linux for my desktop all that time, including gentoo for several years. Personally, I think people should use whatever os they like and the more choices the better!

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago (4 children)

Definitely, fully agree. Gentoo I can imagine is more maintenance than Arch, even. At least a lot more waiting around. 😅 But maybe that's a misconception, too!

But yeah, definitely use whatever you like. I just want to clear up the misconception that Arch is heavy on maintenance. It most definitely is not, unless you want it to be.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] CallMeAl@piefed.zip 2 points 2 months ago (3 children)

I originally switched to Gentoo when I got my first AMD64 workstation. Gentoo was the only distro with full support and optimization for a little while.