Linux

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.

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.

• 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.

The short answer is because I'm lazy. I might lose 30 min during the system setup instead of 20, and now I have a system that I don't have to worry about until the hardware gives up.

Arch is a rolling release distro, which means it's unstable, which doesn't mean what you think, instead it means that you can update your system indefinitely without worrying about "versions". For example, if you had Ubuntu 20.04 installed on your server, in may you had to update it to 24.04, and that's something that can cause issues. And in 2029 you'll need to go through that again. Arch is just constant updates without having that worry. Which means no library is safe from updates, ergo unstable.

Also the AUR is huge, and I'm a lazy ass who likes to just be able to install stuff without having to add PPAs or installing stuff by hand.

Also there's the whole customize the system, I use a very particular set of programs that just won't come pre installed anywhere, so any system that comes with their own stuff will leave me in a system with double the amount of programs for most stuff which is just wasteful.

Finally there's the wiki, while the vast majority of what's there serves you in other systems, if you're running Arch it's wonderful, it even lists the packages you need to install to solve specific errors.

I’m a certified Linux professional of over 15yrs and I have never installed Arch. Not once, never needed it. It offers nothing I can’t either build myself or just install Debian and change what I need it to be.

Some people are enthusiasts that want to take the training wheels off and challenge themselves. I use CachyOS, which is Arch-based, because it thrashes everything else almost every time in speed tests. Thus far, it hasn't proven to be more complicated than the Debian-based distros I've used. I also wasn't expecting better features in Arch with certain programs. Being able to get the absolute newest version of a package at all times has proven to be much more useful to me than detrimental.

Honestly, in the long term it has been less effort.

If you're an "out-od-the-box" comouter user (web browser, maybe one or two apps, and office suite, then stick with the more conventional distros. If you are very dynamic with your OS, especially 8f you play with a lot of different OSS applications, then Arch get's easier.

I use Arch via Manjaro distribution. Yes, there's some quirks coming from Ubuntu, but basically installing OSS/propreitary software using Pacman/Yay/Add/Remove Software is such a breeze, and it's main selling point to me of Arch so I stay with the distro and say good bye to Debian-based one.

Believe it or not, it's still less work than NixOS (at least for a daily-driver OS)

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

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

More software I wanted was packaged for Arch than Ubuntu.

I use Artix (fork of Arch with init freedom)—the main reason why I prefer an Arch base specifically is for the AUR. The reason why I prefer a minimalistic distro in general, is because I want to be able to choose what software I install and how I set up my system. For example I don't use a full DE so any distro that auto-installs a DE for me will install a bunch of software I won't use. You also usually get a lot more control over partitioning etc with minimalistic distros—lets me fuck around with more weird setups if I want to try something out.

To be clear I don't think there's anything wrong with using distros that have more things "pre-packaged". It's a matter of personal preference. The category of "poweruser" makes sense—some users want more fine-grained control over their systems, whilst some users don't care and want something that roughly works with minimal setup. Or perhaps you do care about fine-grained control over your system, but it just so happens that your ideal system is the same as what comes pre-installed with some distro. Do whatever works for you.

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~~

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!" :)

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

because it's less work. i don't have to strip out what a distro thinks i want. i don't have to worry about major distro releases that might have changes that need manual intervention. if there are updates that need manual intervention, they're small, easy to deal with and usually do not effect me. everything is well documented and standard. packages are installed with default settings/config (to my understanding), so i can easily read upstream documentation and not have to deal with weirdness. getting packages that are obscure is easier. i don't have to worry about upstream having a fix, or supporting something that i need but my distro not having the update in their repo. it's just simpler and easier to manage (for my use case)

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.

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.

Because AUR.

the distro I'm daily driving uses arch as base so I just ride along

I like the rolling updates, to be honest. Endeavour has been a wonderful and simple experience. Aside from some NVIDIA issues with Wayland it has been a blast.

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.

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

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.

With Archinstall its really easy. You still need to be familiar with the Wiki, but its not hard. Tedious maybe. And running all vanilla software is nice. No distro modification.

I like learning and having control over my pc. But it's mainly the learning part for me, followed the wiki a second time installing arch on my Thinkpad last week and felt just as satisfied as the first time. But no shame in using archinstall.