Arch is easy enough to install. If you ever get tired of overhead, ala all the apps on the OS which you never use, just start from scratch. It’s not hard to install the base, desktop envo + a browser and start from there. The cleanest desktop you can imagine and probably the resulting OS too
arch is interesting to me and i’m not too worried about the install, the rolling releases and stability of the system are what i think would snag me in using it. though the minute regular updates are probably more an issue for people who delve into the system more to get the absolute most out of it. it’ll be more stable, works out of the box-type distros for me while i get a grasp of things like the file system and using the terminal. but i do think the setups people post of their riced out installs look pretty cool ngl
It is a common misconception that rolling release distros are inherently less stable than other distros. My experience has been exactly the opposite. I’ve used, for extended periods, Ubuntu, Manjaro and Arch. Both Manjaro and Arch were far more stable than my experience with Ubuntu. With ubuntu, every time I had to do a full system upgrade it was a crapshoot about whether or not I would be spending the next day or two fixing my system. But with Manjaro and Arch, it’s never a full system upgrade, as long as you are doing updates regularly, they tend to remain small and manageable.
I’ve never had an update brick my system on Arch and have never felt the need to restart from scratch because an update went to shit. But that was an experience I was getting used to on Ubuntu.
Disclaimer, this is just my experience, and your own mileage may vary.
The rolling release being unstable is wrong. You don’t get the “dev” version of update with bugs and instability, you get a proper update, just in small increments usually.
A lot of people who actually run arch will tell you the same, sometimes it’s even more stable than the major release type systems.
Arch is easy enough to install. If you ever get tired of overhead, ala all the apps on the OS which you never use, just start from scratch. It’s not hard to install the base, desktop envo + a browser and start from there. The cleanest desktop you can imagine and probably the resulting OS too
arch is interesting to me and i’m not too worried about the install, the rolling releases and stability of the system are what i think would snag me in using it. though the minute regular updates are probably more an issue for people who delve into the system more to get the absolute most out of it. it’ll be more stable, works out of the box-type distros for me while i get a grasp of things like the file system and using the terminal. but i do think the setups people post of their riced out installs look pretty cool ngl
It is a common misconception that rolling release distros are inherently less stable than other distros. My experience has been exactly the opposite. I’ve used, for extended periods, Ubuntu, Manjaro and Arch. Both Manjaro and Arch were far more stable than my experience with Ubuntu. With ubuntu, every time I had to do a full system upgrade it was a crapshoot about whether or not I would be spending the next day or two fixing my system. But with Manjaro and Arch, it’s never a full system upgrade, as long as you are doing updates regularly, they tend to remain small and manageable.
I’ve never had an update brick my system on Arch and have never felt the need to restart from scratch because an update went to shit. But that was an experience I was getting used to on Ubuntu.
Disclaimer, this is just my experience, and your own mileage may vary.
The rolling release being unstable is wrong. You don’t get the “dev” version of update with bugs and instability, you get a proper update, just in small increments usually. A lot of people who actually run arch will tell you the same, sometimes it’s even more stable than the major release type systems.