Linux

haven't tried arch but afaik it's a distro that lets the user control everything, like gentoo or slackware. that's actually an easier system to manage if you know what you're doing and have something you want in mind.

~~or some people just enjoy tinkering and suffering~~

I don't understand why Arch is associated with troubles. It was more complicated to fix my issues with Fedora and I don't like Ubuntu default choices. Having the desktop that I like is much easier with Arch and its derivatives.

As with many of these questions, it depends and it’s subjective. In my case I have a machine running Endevour to tinker with and dip my toes into Arch. The philosophy is different where you need to think more about where your packages come from and be able to validate them (especially the AUR). It’s fun to tinker and better understand the underpinnings and on this machine I have very little that I rely on working so am OK with the increased level of jank.

For work I need a system that I can rely on working like it did yesterday and last week as well as having wide support from vendors. For me that means Ubuntu LTS. In many cases there are tools and applications that I really don’t care about how they work internally, just that they can be easily installed and work in-depth.

After trying Ubuntu for a few days I decided to jump in head first and install Arch on my daily driver, it's been a struggle but I learned so much about Linux I decided to work as a Sysadmin.

Not a mean question at all. I haven't had more difficulty keeping a working system than I did on Debian, Ubuntu, Mint, Fedora, etc. I get everything I need in Arch and the packages are always fresh off the grill. I also like the emphasis on text config files and a ground-up install. That helped me better understand my system and how it works.

No idea about performance. My performance recommendation is "don't run Windows!" :)

Isn't bazzite Arch based? I like it cause I can throw it on almost any laptop and it just works. I've been slowly converting my family, and it is just a nice of of the box experience.

because they haven't been privied to install gentoo yet😀

I don’t really understand the question. All you have to do is run archinstall and then add a desktop environment like KDE and that’s like 80% what other distros do.

I think arch used to be hard to get started but not anymore. That’s reserved for gentoo now

• It's amazingly stable even though it's a rolling release.
• Up to date.
• Maintained by many many knowledgeable people.
• Arch Wiki
• 99% of software you need is packaged, and then there's AUR too.

That's about it, but its my daily driver on desktop and laptop.

Because it is less trouble.

I read comments here all the time. People say Linux does not work with the Wifi on their Macs. Works with mine I say. Wayland does not work and lacks this feature or this and this. What software versions are you using I wonder, it has been fixed for me for ages.

Or how about missing software. Am I downloading tarballs to compile myself? No. Am I finding some random PPA? No. Is that PPA conflicting with a PPA I installed last year? No. Am I fighting the sandboxing on Flatpak? No. M I install everything on my system through the package manager.

Am I trying to do development and discovering that I need newer libraries than my distro ships? No. Am I installing newer software and breaking my package manager? No.

Is my system an unstable house of cards because of all the ways I have had to work around the limitations of my distro? No.

When I read about new software with new features, am I trying it out on my system in a couple days. Yes.

After using Arch, everything else just seems so complicated, limited, and frankly unstable.

I have no idea why people think it is harder. To install maybe. If that is your issue, use EndeavourOS.

After using Debian, mint and Ubuntu off and on for years. I am so much happier running endeavoros. I’ve had no issues with it. It’s stable. I don’t feel like I’m dealing with dependencies and random config battles that I did on mint. It’s been great.

What trouble? archinstall makes it dead simple to get on your computer, then at that point it's not much different from any other distro?

I'd sooner ask why people choose shit like Ubuntu where you're stuck dealing with snaps out-of-date packages, and bloat.

I used Debian and Ubuntu for like 20 years and just got sick of packages being forever out of date, and the Archwiki always having exactly what I needed.

I started using Linux in a time when package management was barely usable, and I had a broken distro as a first distro. Too often I was chasing down answers all over the internet when there were few to share, and the diy aspect of arch is rather nostalgic for me.

My main reason is, it's not a dependengy hell. If I want to build software, I don't have to go through 5 iterations of being told something is missing, figuring out what that is (most annoying part), installing that and retrying. On Arch-based distros, it's 2 or less, if it even happens.

Also, AUR.

Other points include

• Small install (I use archinstall though, because more convenient.)
• rolling release.
• Arch wiki

My installs never broke either, so it doesn't feel unstable to me.

I like it more than ther distros because

• Debian is a dependency hell, otherwise fine. Older packages. I still use raspian though.
• Fedora has too much defaults that differ from my preferences. I don't want btrfs, I don't want a seperate home partition, dnf is the only package manager that selects No by default. dnf is also the slowest package manager I've seen. Always needs several seconds between steps for seemingly no reason at all. Feels like you can watch it thinking "Okay, so I've downloaded all these packages, so they are on the disk. That means - let's slow down here and get this right - that means, I should install what I downloaded, right. Okay that makes sense, so let's do that. Here we go installing after downloading". I also got into dependency hell when trying something once, which having to use dnf makes it even worse. - I guess you can tell I don't like Fedora.
• Love the concept of NixOS, don't like the lack of documentation

It isn't any trouble. Rarely an upgraded service requires user intervention. This is usually documented and if not it is easy to search for a fix. I find arch faithfully follows upstream packages and provides a very pure linux experience. As much as I love the Debian community, their maintainers tend to add lots of patches, sometimes exposing huge security flaws. Most other distros are too small to be worthwhile or corporate controlled or change the experience too much.

It's the IKEA effect. You tend to like something more if you built it yourself.

The more you want it to work your way, the less you want a prebuilt solution, and the more you want a rock solid package management system and repo setup. Debian derivatives work in a pinch, or for a server, not so great for a PC you want to do a lot of things on.

I wanted a rolling release distro, and Arch has an amazing wiki. That's why I chose it. Though I ultimately moved on to CachyOS (Arch based), because it's a lot more pre configured than Arch.

Ease of use.

I’ve run the same CachyOS partition for 2 (3?) years, and I don’t do a freaking thing to it anymore. No fixes, no tweaking. It just works.

…Because the tweaks and rapid updates are constantly coming down the pipe for me. I pay attention to them and any errors, but it’s all just done for me! Whenever I run into an issue, a system update fixes it 90% of the time, and if it doesn’t it’s either coming or my own stupid mistake.

On Ubuntu and some other “slow” distros I was constantly:

• Fighting bugs in old packages

• Fighting and maintaining all the manual fixes for them

• Fighting the system which does not like me rolling packages forward.

• And breaking all that for a major system update, instead of incremental ones where breakage is (as it turns out) more manageable.

• I’d often be consulting the Arch wiki, but it wasn’t really applicable to my system.

I could go on and on, but it was miserable and high maintenance.

I avoided Fedora because of the 3rd party Nvidia support, given how much trouble I already had with Nvidia.

…It seems like a misconception that it’s always “a la carte” too. The big distros like Endeavor and Cachy and such pick the subsystems for you. And there are big application groups like KDE that install a bunch of stuff at once.

I've just gotten used to knowing i can get the latest and greatest and AUR makes a lot of stuff easy when it comes to getting stuff not readily available on the package manager. There's not often i can't find something i want or need to not be on there.

I've used both base arch and cachyos. I've landed on cachyos for now because i didn't want to fiddle with games and wine and just wanted them to work and they just do on cachyos. Laptops that i don't expect to game on just get base arch with hyprland installed, just mostly so i can get my tinkering fix from modifying hyprland

Funnily enough, I thought like you and was rocking Debian and various derivatives for years. Then one day, for some stupid reason (an out-of-date library for a side project in the Debian repo) and out of curiosity I tried arch.

Honestly have not looked back since for a bunch of reasons.

First, the package manager (pacman) is just awesome and extremely fast. I remember quickly ditching fedora in the past because, in part, of how goddamn slow dnf was.

Then, it's actually much lower maintenance than I'd initially believed. I maybe had to repair something once after an update broke, and that was expected and documented so no problem there. Plus the rolling release model just makes it easier to update without having version jumps.

Talking of documentation, the wiki is really solid. It was a reference for me even before using arch anyways, so now it's even better.

People also tend to value the customisability (it is indeed easier in a sense), the lack of bloat (like apps installed by default that you never use), and the AUR.

And, to be fair, a good share of people are probably also just memeing to death.

So I don't know whether you're missing something, it depends what you think Arch is like. If you believe it to be this monster of difficulty to install, where you essentially build your own system entirely etc etc.. then yeah, you're missing that it's become much simpler than this. Otherwise if having more up-to-date software, easier ways to configure things and a rather minimal base install so you can choose exactly what you want on your system does not appeal to you, then likely arch is not going to be your thing.

I get to set up a system precisely how I want it to work, when an update releases for something, I get that update and I am not at the behest of a maintainer to decide for me if I need that feature or bugfix at the moment. There’s no preconfigured “opinions” on how stuff should work that differ from the defaults in most cases, which means everything usually actually just works, vs some distros where the maintainers felt they were smarter than upstream and consequently broke shit.

Is it shown that there are significant performance benefits to installing daemons and utilities à la carte?

No, not really.

Is it because arch users are enthusiasts that enjoy trying to optimize their system?

This is IMHO the most important aspect. The thing they're trying to optimize isn't performance, though, it's more "usability", i.e. making the system work for you. When you get down to it and understand all the components of the OS, and all the moving parts within, you can set it up however you prefer and then combine them in novel ways to solve your tasks more quickly.

Newer software is nice, it's not too much trouble.

So you can tell people you use Arch btw

I never found using endeavour any more trouble than using Ubuntu or fedora, and I've used both in school or work so, my question back to you, why do people choose corporate coded distros like fedora or Ubuntu when easy to use, up to date and free as in freedom distros like endeavour exist?

I'm going extra silly: why do you wear bikinis when swimsuits exist? Dunno, preferences. People have them.

Arch is great for reasons ppl already mentioned, but if i'd start over i'd go with Endevour, purely because its so much easier to install

I think for many people, whether they're tinkerers or programmers or whoever, enjoy the freedom that comes with Arch.

Because it comes with a nice BTW

Its like buying a pre-built PC vs a custom PC.

They do the same things at the end of the day, but the the custom PC converts the extra time investment into a result that gives better performance and is more suited to your needs.

I boot my laptop. it takes seconds, the memory footprint is like 600mb

With sway everything feels snappy and insanely responsive.

I haven't had any issues with arch on my laptop for like 5 years now.

Why would I use anything else ?

Arch really isn't very difficult to use these days for someone with a few years debian or similar use (don't try and use it when first trying linux).

Installing it is straightforward (albeit in a linux rather than, say, windows installation sense), and you can access preferences via the settings app.

The Arch Wiki is probably the sungle most useful documentation for any Linux user; I don’t even use Arch and it’s still extremely helpful.

I could see the benefits of using Arch just so almost every function my system has is near-perfectly documented in Arch Wiki.

As for the distro itself, it has the newest packages, and often good repos with interesting packages that Debian and others may lack. It also expects you to choose and install the components you want, whereas the Debian installer will usually just install defaults; you can use Debootstrap for a minimal Debian install, but that’s not as well supported for installing Debian due to the way tools as set up on the install medium.

The reason I choose Debian over Arch is because if I don’t use a device for several months and have to install updates (like my school laptop over the summer), Debian Stable is more likely to survive that than Arch; I’ve destroyed several Arch VMs by trying to update them after not using them for months. I’m sure I could have salvaged them if I tried, but I’d rather just make a new VM.