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?

  • LeFantome@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    11 hours ago

    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.

    • LiveLM@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Everything I wanted to say in a single comment.
      It really just werks™