I’m a little bit underwhelmed, I thought that based off the fact so many people seem to make using this distro their personality I expected… well, more I guess?
Once the basic stuff is set-up, like wifi, a few basic packages, a desktop environment/window manager, and a bit of desktop environment and terminal customisation, then that’s it. Nothing special, just a Linux distribution with less default programs and occasionally having to look up how to install a hardware driver or something if you need to use bluetooth for the first time or something like that.
Am I missing something? How can I make using Arch Linux my personality when once it’s set up it’s just like any other computer?
What exactly is it that people obsess over? The desktop environment and terminal customisation? Setting up NetworkManager with nmcli? Using Vim to edit a .conf file?
Not too familiar with it, in what way would you consider it better?
It is better in all the ways. Newer packages, no imperative config, reproducible.
Replaces the Archwiki with basically 0 docs, a large chunk of your Linux knowledge no longer applies, you can’t compile from source (even if you mostly don’t need to), everything is different, the nix language kinda sucks until you “get” it, etc.
But it has a lot of advantages too if you have the time and desire to learn it.
I recently installed Nix alongside with Arch. I feel the same. After years of using Arch I spent two days to get everything configured the same as in my Arch, and I haven’t finished it yet.