57
Users of Arch-based distros, why don't you use pure Arch? (ani.social)
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by kiri@ani.social to c/linux@programming.dev
89 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
[-] CallMeAl@piefed.zip 2 points 20 hours ago

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.

a lot more waiting around

For a big build I would kick it off at bed time :)

[-] victorz@lemmy.world 1 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

Ah, neat. I assume it had early support since you compile the packages yourself?

And tell me if you will: did it ever occur that a build had failed when you woke up? ๐Ÿ˜… Or maybe builds didn't really fail? How common was that?

[-] CallMeAl@piefed.zip 2 points 15 hours ago

Builds failing was pretty rare for me but I didn't customize the compile options much beyond AMD64 optimizations.

[-] victorz@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago

I see, thanks Al!

this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2026
57 points (95.2% liked)

Linux

14008 readers
393 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