52
submitted 21 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) by kiri@ani.social to c/linux@programming.dev

(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 3 points 16 hours ago

Yeah, I mean, if I were to admin a fleet of computers or something like that, I would definitely not run Arch on those. 😅

[-] Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz 1 points 15 hours ago

LOL. Same.

Every now and then I find a comment where someone who clearly knows what they’re doing is deploying an Arch server in a work setting. Feeling confident with that decision takes something I don’t have. Maybe it’s experience, knowledge or something.

[-] victorz@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago

I believe there are docker images for Arch? But those probably have some form of reproducibility, I should hope. Since you can't install specific versions of packages declaratively with pacman unless you have physical access to the actual package file, I would not use it for a server. Maybe coupled with Guix or something? I dunno.

Maybe they need an environment with very up-to-date packages, or something along that vein. 🤔

this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2026
52 points (94.8% liked)

Linux

14008 readers
449 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