I do. I know how to install arch, but I do not always have time or patience to get internet working (mostly this). I prefere arch for many reasons, and there is more to it than just the installer. But when I last installed arch, archinstall script was yet to be stable, so it was not an option, but now even that is fine i guess.

[–] Damage@feddit.it 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

[...] I do not always have time or patience [...]

ARCH

[–] sga@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago

should this not be a testament to arch? i have a custom bootloader (well not custom, it is uki, generated by a relativly new an niche uki generator booster), i started using rust coreutils since march or april, have swapped much of other core stuff, or have a relatively minimal system, and still be patient?

Arch's specialness does not end with installer. and this kinda is not unique to arch - arch does it, so does debian (but slower to get new packages i want), gentoo (maybe better than arch, but i do not want to compile everything), void (less packages), fedora (between arch and debian i guess), etc. most base distros allow you to swap stuff.

[–] RalfWausE@blackneon.net 1 points 2 days ago

Debian, Fedora, Ubuntu, Suse... in the end, it doesn't matter. If you (you as in "newbie Linux user") find a distro that captures your attention that is all that matters. For me - personally - it was some Slackware based distribution that hooked me back in the 90s....