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

submitted 20 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) by kiri@ani.social to c/linux@programming.dev

81 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

[-] heliotrope@retrofed.com 5 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

I haven't run Arch in a few months, but I used to use CachyOS and Artix.

In the case of CachyOS, the repos have a few packages from the AUR pre-compiled, and linux-cachyos-hardened is a fantastic kernel flavour.

Artix, meanwhile, lets me use runit instead of systemd.

I also like the idea of Linux-libre, for which I would probably use Hyperbola (if not Guix). However, the only machine I own with a compatible WiFi chipset is a 32-bit MacBook from the 2000s, which I haven't seen since 2024.

The preconfigured desktop and software is irrelevant to me. I have my own DE recipes and workflows that I can replicate across most Linux distros and BSDs.

this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2026

52 points (94.8% liked)

Linux

14008 readers

457 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