82
Users of Arch-based distros, why don't you use pure Arch? (ani.social)
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by to c/linux@programming.dev
128 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
[–] 4 points 1 month ago (1 child)

I still can't install from memory 😆, even if I understand every step now. The reason is quite simple for me: I install it so rarely because it's so stable. I only ever install it on new hardware. Every computer I have has basically only seen a single Arch install. 👌

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    Fair point! I just did many installs recently (a bit of a long story), and at some point just stopped even following the wiki. But if I can afford it, I simply clone my entire system, and tweak from there. Takes very little time, and I have a complete clone of my perfectly working system.

    Also, theoretically, I don’t even need a backup of the system, if I have at least two laptops with mostly same system. I have, one at home with broken keyboard and no battery, which servers as my home computer connected to a display. And another one is for on the go.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent