Linux

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

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.

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.

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 don't think that currently there is much difference in terms of performance, unless you are using a very bloated distro.

Personally I prefer Arch compared to Ubuntu, Fedora or similar (including Endeavor, Manjaro etc...) because I simply want to build my OS, piece by piece.

There is basically nothing else about it, I just like feeling the system I am running as something I created (kinda) and knowing exactly what is running and why it's there.

Obviously you could achieve the same with other distros (and even go deeper with things like Gentoo or Guix) but Arch makes it very easy to do it.

EDIT: oh and being rolling release too, as another user mentioned. I would never go back to a fixed release distro.

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 ?

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.

I daily drive Debian now, but several years ago when a couple of my computers were still very new, I used Arch since it has bleeding-edge support for new hardware while being still thoroughly documented in the Arch Wiki.

The sheer volume of packages on the official repo and the AUR made it great for discovering which desktop environment I wanted to use and for software-hopping in general too. You can have as much or as little on your system as you want and nothing is forced on you.

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.

Honestly it's the most problem-free distribution I've used. I've used fedora, ubuntu, opensuse, and they all are way easier to break and way harder to fix. Once you get arch working it works really reliably and when it occasionally breaks it's easy to fix. I used nixos for a while, and it is more reliable but it's just a little too much effort.

Honestly, the AUR and arch wiki are amazing. Every other distro I've used I've had to rely on out of date or unreliable support forums. Anytime I want to install something I don't have hope it already has a package, because someone has usually already built an AUR package that either compiles from the latest source for you or comes pre-pcompiled.

Being on the most up to date version of the kernel and all software is a good thing in my book. I certainly haven't had issues caused by this.

I'll admit the Arch can be a struggle to set up initially, so that's why I use EndeavourOS. EndeavourOS is just Arch with a GUI installer, a shortlist of tweaks all users would want anyway, it let's you choose your preferred Desktop Environment during install, and it feels like any other distro in terms of getting it ready for use. It doesn't come with any apps, other than core system tools and firefox, which is also good because you can then install whatever you want.and be free of anything you don't want. Also, all the usual hardware gets detected and works out of the box.

I won't go back to any other Linux.

It's not "trouble" if you're already familiar with Linux. It's not the way I would go as a user of 20+ years, but it's not just for desktop use.

If you're looking to build a platform for something, it's perfect. Look at why Valve switched to use to for SteamOS. You have an underlying framework of a stable system, and you just create automation to slap it all together into the base layer of all the things you want without having to worry about specific things breaking the stack you're building on top of it.

It's like a blank page instead of a notebook with line guides.

It helps make more sense if you think of everything you've got to build on it already existing in a git repo. Merge > Build > Release. Makes perfect sense, and you save yourself creating an entire distro to maintain from scratch.

I've tried several distros before, none of them feel the same as arch linux, I keep coming back to it. It is simple and just works. The other distros feel too bloated out of the box, which immediately demotivates me. I don't want to go through the hassle of removing everything I don't need by hand, so arch is just perfect.

Though I think I shouldn't have went with arch in my vps. I miss the automated security updates of Fedora.

I had much more trouble with keeping my debian/ubuntu installs running for years back in the days. And it was always out of date. Whenever there was a bug, I would search for it, see that it was already fixed upstream and be frustrated that I'd only get that fix in half a year. And then after half a year, dist-upgrade borked my whole install and I had to reinstall from scratch. I remember all the lost weekends of fiddling with it and the stress from needing my pc in working order for my job.

With arch, I've broken it a couple times in the first 2 months, while doing my ideal setup. But now I have been on the same install for about 10 years. It survived being cloned to multiple new computers and laptops and just keeps updating and working. Been using it professionally of course. Rarely do I have to do a minor fix. 2024 was kind of bad iirc, there were 3-4 manual interventions I had to do. It took probably 8 hours of maintenance work in total for that year. 2025 was mostly super smooth sailing, iirc I had to do 1 or at most 2 small fixes that took less than 20minutes each.

But I must say, I've set it up in a very deliberate and failsafe way. I can't guarantee the same result if you do anything different from my setup - software choise and process wise. And I've seen pretty bad fuckups on the support forums again and again from other people that do their own approach with arch.

I guess thats the power of it. It can be molded into very different forms. With Ubuntu you just get spoonfed what canonical cooks for their corpo overlords.

1. Because I like to. 2. Because it still has the best flexibility for packages. 3. I like using cutting edge releases.

It is also extremely overblown just how "hard" arch is. Either way I know a lot more about my system and how it functions now.

I am a software developer, on work computers I have debian, on my personal I have arch.

I would never use fedora as I am not here to troubleshoot bullshit for red hat, and would never use ubuntu because of their snap bullshit. It can be avoided but in both cases it is an indicator of the motivations of the company that controls them not being aligned with my interests.

I like arch because of the rolling release and because I like to control and understand all that happens on my machine. Optimization is not my main motivator.

I have almost nothing à la carte, i bulk-installed all that my DE wanted and use that plus alacritty and steam.

Maybe I like the misery.

to me the main difference was having to use a different package manager. so no biggie really. and arch has an awesome wiki. the documentation made things too easy so now I use nixos BTW

The thing stopping me from using Arch is that most programs come out as debs and you have to wait for them to show up in the AUR. Example: when Mullvad VPN first came out it was only available as a deb. How long did it take to show up in the AUR? Who made that available? Was it the Mullvad folks or someone else? That's the kind of thing that concerns me.

Because all in one distros have mistakes or bugs, for which fixes are only available in the next release 6-12 months later.

Other times, I know exactly what the problem is and how to fix it, but due to the vendors shenanigans (Ubuntu) it's ironically much harder to fix. Adding extra repos via ppas and managing them is harder than just pulling it from AUR.

Having problems due to a vendor's mistake and being unable to fix them was exactly why I wanted to move away from Windows and macOS. All in one distros kind of fail at addressing that. Arch is basically "fuck it, I'll compile it myself"

I moved to arch because of rolling releases, ubuntu switching to unity fucked my laptop over. Yes the initial install is a bit more work, but the wiki is great and I feel like I have a better understanding of linux after going through the process. Also really not a fan of apt.

Im also wondering this.

I've tried installing it on 2 different pcs a few times and ive not gotten it to work yet lol. Granted I didnt spend a lot of time on it.

I appreciate you can build the system yourself but its almost choice overload for adhd me and ill end up installing every single package anyway that ill never need, which negates the point of arch.

It meets their needs and preferences, simple as that. I tried Arch in like 2008, and thought people were crazy for all the trouble it took back then. Nowadays there's a lot of nice distros built on it, so you can get the benefits (such as they may be) without all the low-level tinkering.

I wanted my computer to be secure but headless. Suse, fedora both had supposed instructions but in classic Linux style they had a bunch of out of date commands and software and it didn't work. Fedora always required a human to enter a password on boot, suse just bricked.

Endeavarch had instructions (a maze of unclear gibberish, to be honest) that actually worked and did what I wanted with minimal fuss and it's been operating well for 2 years.

Yes and no to all of those reasons, and many others.

There isn't a right or wrong way to install/use Linux. As the saying goes "you do you". If going through the Arch learning curve doesn't appeal to you, don't do it. If you're the sort of person whose curiosity sometimes leads them to do silly things that aren't necessarily logical but that you find enormously fun and satisfying, then maybe go for it.

It's a misconception that is any "trouble". I'm using CachyOS, which is basically Arch but with additionally optimized repositories and settings. You just install it an use it, like Mint or Ubuntu. It just works, but it's also faster for performance related tasks (especially gaming, but also others), importantly and explicitly without any tinkering.

Quite the opposite, actually: there much less tinkering required to get gaming specific things to "just work", as the tweaks are all there by default. This includes running Windows programs often considered hard to run (through Wine).

I do happen to enjoy and want a rolling release. There's a new kernel released, and I can install it like a day later. New KDE comes out, update is there for me in a few hours. Software is generally up to date, which was such a refreshing experience as I'm used to running Debian server side. Oh what a contrast.

It works well for me.

Actually, I am a long-term Debian user (for 15 years) and use it in parallel with Arch, since about ten years, and I had less trouble with Arch: When upgrading from Debian 10 to 12, GNOME broke for me so that I could not log in any more. I spent a day or so to search for the cause - it is related to the user configuration but I could not figure out what it was and I had to time-box the effort, and switched to StumpWM (a tiling window manager, which I had been using before). I had no such problem with Arch, and on top of that I could just install GNOME's PaperWM extension just to give it a try.

You could argue that my failure to upgrade was GNOME's fault, not Debians, and in a way this is true. Especially, GNOME should not hide configuration in inscrutinable unreadable files, and of course it should parse for errors coming from backwards-compatible breaking changes.

But the thing is, for software making many small changes is very often much easier than a few big changes. For example because it is far easier to narrow down the source of a problem. So, it is likely that GNOME on Arch had the same problem between minor upgrades, and fixed it without much fuss.

But you also need to see that Arch is primarily a Desktop/end user system, while Debian is, for example, also a server system. Debian is designed for a far larger range of applications and purposes, and having many small breaking upgrades would likely not work well for these.

For me it mostly just came down to years of frustration combating windows to do what i wanted. Arch offers the level of control for me to set things up the way i like them. Was it harder to set up initially than another distribution? Yeah. But it was a worthwhile trade off

learning.

I initially started using it because I needed the newest drivers and back ports on Mint was taking to long, since then I've stuck with rolling release so I don't have to deal with driver hell. I stick with Arch over say Debian Tumbleweed at this point mostly from momentum.