May be a mean sounding question, but I’m genuinely wondering why people would choose Arch/Endevour/whatever (NOT on steam hardware) over another all-in-one distro related to Fedora or Ubuntu. Is it shown that there are significant performance benefits to installing daemons and utilities à la carte? Is there something else I’m missing? Is it because arch users are enthusiasts that enjoy trying to optimize their system?

  • YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

  • VerilyFemme@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

  • mostlikelyaperson@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    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 were the maintainers felt they were smarter than upstream and consequently broke shit.

  • communism@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

  • psion1369@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

  • njordomir@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    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!” :)

  • erock@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    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

  • hexagonwin@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    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

  • mko@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

  • idefix@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

  • Eggymatrix@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

  • HelloRoot@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

    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. 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. 2025 was mostly super smooth sailing, iirc I had to do 1 or at most 2 small fixes that took less than 20minutes each.