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?
You must log in or register to comment.
Check your neck for extra beard hairs, or your legs for knee high socks
Welcome to realizing the Memes are all bullshit and its just a solid distro that’s worth using for the simpleness. Just go use your computer like the average user is and roll with it
Yep, all this «how do I learn linux» stuff is weird. You don’t learn your OS, you use it. Did you need to «learn» Windows? You just launch it and click your browser / file manager / media player and browse, manage files and watch or listen to your media files.
You can just use your PC as you would regularly use your PC and find solutions once you face some issues. Yes, Linux issues are different from Windows issues.
You joke, but I was there, 3000 years ago… and DOS, Windows and Lotus 1-2-3 courses sold like hot cakes. Yeah, people had to learn Windows until a critical mass of people knew it so knowledge would self propagate.
the vhs tapes
You already announced you use Arch… So you’re doing good
Didn’t bother going through the hoops and installed EndeavourOS which is arch-based with some additional default applications.
For me, the best thing of Arch isn’t the distribution but the Arch wiki. An impressive piece of documentation.
Arch wiki is superb, couldn’t have installed or configured Arch without it.
using vim to edit a .conf file
that’s the nixos people
OP forgot the socks. Classic mistake.
Now actually use it for a couple of years. Then you’ll see whats special about it.
For me personally, Ubuntu was breaking on every dist upgrade, the software was always out of date or not available in the repos. Been running arch for 5 years, same install, even transplanted it over to newer computers without issues. When some package is missing, I can throw together a PKGBUILD with chatgpt and put it on the AUR for others to use. It fucking rocks and is extremely sturdy while allowing me to do with it whatever I want.
But yeah, besides that, it’s just a linux. The individual things it does well are not even exclusive to arch. Ideally, you should not think about your OS at all and it should be out of your way, while you do something on it.
Yup, Arch is by far the distro I have had the fewest amounts of technical issues with. Yes, you need to know what you are doing or be willing to read docs, but there’s no magical bullshit, maintainer capriciousness and lack of planning happening like I have unfortunately witnessed all too often while using other distros.
Makes sense. Do you find that by having the same install for so long (including transplanting it) that you have accumulated a lot of bloat? One of the things I really enjoyed about a fresh install was that I knew there wasn’t a build-up of digital junk files, but with Arch fresh installing every once in a while just seems impractical.
I’ve been using Arch for about 15 years or so, and yes, I build up cruft… in my home directory ;-). The system itself is remarkably good at keeping tidy. The one spot to keep an eye on is /var/cache/pacman, as that’s where it stores every package you download before installation and it won’t delete it without you asking it to.
Any new config file will be saved with a
.pacsaveextension, so you’ll want to keep an eye out for those, but that’s basically it
Ubuntu installs upgrade well in my experience, unless you add weird and outdated software from external sources. A bit like manually installing pkgbuild files you found on Github. Stuff will break in the same way when dependencies don’t get upgraded.
That said, Arch installs will break when a random library decides to update, and Ubuntu will break years later when you decide to upgrade.
Except for maybe Gentoo, Arch is the most “gets in your way” OS I’ve seriously used. You need to be conscious of stuff like your bootloader configuration, the network manager you use, and sometimes the kind of Bluetooth daemon you’re running, or software may not work or break your boot. It’s pretty easy to use if you install Arch by picking the exact same software you can also find in other distros (i.e. the Ubuntu style grub+systemd+NetworkManager+Gnome set, or the Fedora systemd-boot+dracut+NetworkManager+Gnome set). Following the Arch guide without copying a preexisting software set will make your life very difficult, as I’ve found out.
You’ve just made your first post regarding Arch. The cycle is complete.
What exactly is it that people obsess over? The ricing?
Please refrain from using racist terms. Here’s a good thread about it.
Thanks for pointing this out.
Of course! Thanks for being cool. It always sucks to learn a term you’ve been using has a shitty meaning you didn’t intend, and some people react to that realization quite poorly as we can see below lol
Arch isn’t cool anymore you should switch to gentoo
You misspelled Linux from Scratch.
Good now wipe it and install NixOS. You’re ready.
But I have nvidia hardware :(
nVidia drivers on NixOS are easier and more pain free that on any other distro I’ve used.
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.
Linux distros differ only in their package managers, really.
And init systems, and C libraries, and the few that use something other than GNU.
The AUR is pretty awesome. If a piece of software exists on Linux, it’s in the AUR. Even software that doesn’t have a native Linux version can sometimes be found these, e.g. repackaged versions of Electron apps for Windows.
And once you start really customizing your system, you’ll see the value of the Arch Wiki. If there’s something you can do on Arch, the Wiki probably has a well-written guide for it.
100% its the Wiki and AUR!
On every other distro, once you want a program not in the package manager, it will likely be broken by the next update. On arch 99.995% of the time it will be in AUR and you can just make a simple PKGBUILD when its not, so your updates will automatically recompile all of your personal projects!
Well these days we have flatpak to solve the “not in the repo” (or ‘old version in the repo’) problem.
Only for (some) desktop applications. The AUR has everything, including CLI tools, configurations and even some niche scripts
Exactly. I hate when people constantly bring in Flatpak, because I’d be happily using Debian, if I could have Qtile Wayland with Qtile-extras and Hyprland in the repos with all their dependencies. But that’s never happening, especially for Qtile. These are window managers, you can’t package them in a Flatpak. And what about niche cli tools, as you mentioned? Or what about the latest Neovim on Debian? Yes, there’s a Flatpak but do you really want to mess with a Flatpaked CLI app? I know I don’t.
Most distros are very similar - it’s mostly the same software just using a different package manager.
This is why “which distro should I use” is the most annoying question in this community.
There is a pretty big difference in terms of usability between Arch and everything else because of the rolling release model and the AUR. Lots of things you would have to manually install from a git repo or track down a PPA for can be installed like a normal package.
So what you’re saying is that the package manager is very different?
My point stands - once things are installed your “Linux Experience” is pretty similar.
NOTE: I’ve used words like “most” and “similar” and “pretty”. Do not ignore these words. They have meaning.
I would say it’s not very different, just one league above all the others that I’ve come across.
The three things that stand out in my opinion is how much their package manager can query packages, it’s rolling release and the number of packages they have in the AUR.
It makes Arch the most complete and up to date Linux distro,
with the exception of a user friendly forum,
that doesn’t look like the nazi soup kitchen from Seinfeld,
and an installer.(BTW)
I use Manjaro and little bit of Artix.
If I would recommend anything, it’s either EndeavourOS or Manjaro.
They’re Arch-based and friendlier.I stopped using Arch because I got banned from their forum for changing my username.
