It's the IKEA effect. You tend to like something more if you built it yourself.

I wanted a rolling release distro, and Arch has an amazing wiki. That's why I chose it. Though I ultimately moved on to CachyOS (Arch based), because it's a lot more pre configured than Arch.

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.

• It's amazingly stable even though it's a rolling release.
• Up to date.
• Maintained by many many knowledgeable people.
• Arch Wiki
• 99% of software you need is packaged, and then there's AUR too.

That's about it, but its my daily driver on desktop and laptop.

Funnily enough, I thought like you and was rocking Debian and various derivatives for years. Then one day, for some stupid reason (an out-of-date library for a side project in the Debian repo) and out of curiosity I tried arch.

Honestly have not looked back since for a bunch of reasons.

First, the package manager (pacman) is just awesome and extremely fast. I remember quickly ditching fedora in the past because, in part, of how goddamn slow dnf was.

Then, it's actually much lower maintenance than I'd initially believed. I maybe had to repair something once after an update broke, and that was expected and documented so no problem there. Plus the rolling release model just makes it easier to update without having version jumps.

Talking of documentation, the wiki is really solid. It was a reference for me even before using arch anyways, so now it's even better.

People also tend to value the customisability (it is indeed easier in a sense), the lack of bloat (like apps installed by default that you never use), and the AUR.

And, to be fair, a good share of people are probably also just memeing to death.

So I don't know whether you're missing something, it depends what you think Arch is like. If you believe it to be this monster of difficulty to install, where you essentially build your own system entirely etc etc.. then yeah, you're missing that it's become much simpler than this. Otherwise if having more up-to-date software, easier ways to configure things and a rather minimal base install so you can choose exactly what you want on your system does not appeal to you, then likely arch is not going to be your thing.

So you can tell people you use Arch btw

Is it shown that there are significant performance benefits to installing daemons and utilities à la carte?

No, not really.

Is it because arch users are enthusiasts that enjoy trying to optimize their system?

This is IMHO the most important aspect. The thing they're trying to optimize isn't performance, though, it's more "usability", i.e. making the system work for you. When you get down to it and understand all the components of the OS, and all the moving parts within, you can set it up however you prefer and then combine them in novel ways to solve your tasks more quickly.

The more you want it to work your way, the less you want a prebuilt solution, and the more you want a rock solid package management system and repo setup. Debian derivatives work in a pinch, or for a server, not so great for a PC you want to do a lot of things on.

I think for many people, whether they're tinkerers or programmers or whoever, enjoy the freedom that comes with Arch.

Ease of use.

I’ve run the same CachyOS partition for 2 (3?) years, and I don’t do a freaking thing to it anymore. No fixes, no tweaking. It just works.

…Because the tweaks and rapid updates are constantly coming down the pipe for me. I pay attention to them and any errors, but it’s all just done for me! Whenever I run into an issue, a system update fixes it 90% of the time, and if it doesn’t it’s either coming or my own stupid mistake.

On Ubuntu and some other “slow” distros I was constantly:

• Fighting bugs in old packages

• Fighting and maintaining all the manual fixes for them

• Fighting the system which does not like me rolling packages forward.

• And breaking all that for a major system update, instead of incremental ones where breakage is (as it turns out) more manageable.

• I’d often be consulting the Arch wiki, but it wasn’t really applicable to my system.

I could go on and on, but it was miserable and high maintenance.

I avoided Fedora because of the 3rd party Nvidia support, given how much trouble I already had with Nvidia.

…It seems like a misconception that it’s always “a la carte” too. The big distros like Endeavor and Cachy and such pick the subsystems for you. And there are big application groups like KDE that install a bunch of stuff at once.

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.

Because it comes with a nice BTW

My main reason is, it's not a dependengy hell. If I want to build software, I don't have to go through 5 iterations of being told something is missing, figuring out what that is (most annoying part), installing that and retrying. On Arch-based distros, it's 2 or less, if it even happens.

Also, AUR.

Other points include

• Small install (I use archinstall though, because more convenient.)
• rolling release.
• Arch wiki

My installs never broke either, so it doesn't feel unstable to me.

I like it more than ther distros because

• Debian is a dependency hell, otherwise fine. Older packages. I still use raspian though.
• Fedora has too much defaults that differ from my preferences. I don't want btrfs, I don't want a seperate home partition, dnf is the only package manager that selects No by default. dnf is also the slowest package manager I've seen. Always needs several seconds between steps for seemingly no reason at all. Feels like you can watch it thinking "Okay, so I've downloaded all these packages, so they are on the disk. That means - let's slow down here and get this right - that means, I should install what I downloaded, right. Okay that makes sense, so let's do that. Here we go installing after downloading". I also got into dependency hell when trying something once, which having to use dnf makes it even worse. - I guess you can tell I don't like Fedora.
• Love the concept of NixOS, don't like the lack of documentation

I never found using endeavour any more trouble than using Ubuntu or fedora, and I've used both in school or work so, my question back to you, why do people choose corporate coded distros like fedora or Ubuntu when easy to use, up to date and free as in freedom distros like endeavour exist?

I'm going extra silly: why do you wear bikinis when swimsuits exist? Dunno, preferences. People have them.

Newer software is nice, it's not too much trouble.

I don't think that currently there is much difference in terms of performance, unless you are using a very bloated distro.

Personally I prefer Arch compared to Ubuntu, Fedora or similar (including Endeavor, Manjaro etc...) because I simply want to build my OS, piece by piece.

There is basically nothing else about it, I just like feeling the system I am running as something I created (kinda) and knowing exactly what is running and why it's there.

Obviously you could achieve the same with other distros (and even go deeper with things like Gentoo or Guix) but Arch makes it very easy to do it.

EDIT: oh and being rolling release too, as another user mentioned. I would never go back to a fixed release distro.

The Arch Wiki is probably the sungle most useful documentation for any Linux user; I don’t even use Arch and it’s still extremely helpful.

I could see the benefits of using Arch just so almost every function my system has is near-perfectly documented in Arch Wiki.

As for the distro itself, it has the newest packages, and often good repos with interesting packages that Debian and others may lack. It also expects you to choose and install the components you want, whereas the Debian installer will usually just install defaults; you can use Debootstrap for a minimal Debian install, but that’s not as well supported for installing Debian due to the way tools as set up on the install medium.

The reason I choose Debian over Arch is because if I don’t use a device for several months and have to install updates (like my school laptop over the summer), Debian Stable is more likely to survive that than Arch; I’ve destroyed several Arch VMs by trying to update them after not using them for months. I’m sure I could have salvaged them if I tried, but I’d rather just make a new VM.

It's not "trouble" if you're already familiar with Linux. It's not the way I would go as a user of 20+ years, but it's not just for desktop use.

If you're looking to build a platform for something, it's perfect. Look at why Valve switched to use to for SteamOS. You have an underlying framework of a stable system, and you just create automation to slap it all together into the base layer of all the things you want without having to worry about specific things breaking the stack you're building on top of it.

It's like a blank page instead of a notebook with line guides.

It helps make more sense if you think of everything you've got to build on it already existing in a git repo. Merge > Build > Release. Makes perfect sense, and you save yourself creating an entire distro to maintain from scratch.

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. I remember all the lost weekends of fiddling with it and the stress from needing my pc in working order for my job.

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. Been using it professionally of course. 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. It took probably 8 hours of maintenance work in total for that year. 2025 was mostly super smooth sailing, iirc I had to do 1 or at most 2 small fixes that took less than 20minutes each.

But I must say, I've set it up in a very deliberate and failsafe way. I can't guarantee the same result if you do anything different from my setup - software choise and process wise. And I've seen pretty bad fuckups on the support forums again and again from other people that do their own approach with arch.

I guess thats the power of it. It can be molded into very different forms. With Ubuntu you just get spoonfed what canonical cooks for their corpo overlords.

because they haven't been privied to install gentoo yet😀

I boot my laptop. it takes seconds, the memory footprint is like 600mb

With sway everything feels snappy and insanely responsive.

I haven't had any issues with arch on my laptop for like 5 years now.

Why would I use anything else ?

I daily drive Debian now, but several years ago when a couple of my computers were still very new, I used Arch since it has bleeding-edge support for new hardware while being still thoroughly documented in the Arch Wiki.

The sheer volume of packages on the official repo and the AUR made it great for discovering which desktop environment I wanted to use and for software-hopping in general too. You can have as much or as little on your system as you want and nothing is forced on you.

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.

What trouble? archinstall makes it dead simple to get on your computer, then at that point it's not much different from any other distro?

I'd sooner ask why people choose shit like Ubuntu where you're stuck dealing with snaps out-of-date packages, and bloat.

I used Debian and Ubuntu for like 20 years and just got sick of packages being forever out of date, and the Archwiki always having exactly what I needed.

I've tried several distros before, none of them feel the same as arch linux, I keep coming back to it. It is simple and just works. The other distros feel too bloated out of the box, which immediately demotivates me. I don't want to go through the hassle of removing everything I don't need by hand, so arch is just perfect.

Though I think I shouldn't have went with arch in my vps. I miss the automated security updates of Fedora.

It isn't any trouble. Rarely an upgraded service requires user intervention. This is usually documented and if not it is easy to search for a fix. I find arch faithfully follows upstream packages and provides a very pure linux experience. As much as I love the Debian community, their maintainers tend to add lots of patches, sometimes exposing huge security flaws. Most other distros are too small to be worthwhile or corporate controlled or change the experience too much.

Honestly, the AUR and arch wiki are amazing. Every other distro I've used I've had to rely on out of date or unreliable support forums. Anytime I want to install something I don't have hope it already has a package, because someone has usually already built an AUR package that either compiles from the latest source for you or comes pre-pcompiled.

Being on the most up to date version of the kernel and all software is a good thing in my book. I certainly haven't had issues caused by this.

I'll admit the Arch can be a struggle to set up initially, so that's why I use EndeavourOS. EndeavourOS is just Arch with a GUI installer, a shortlist of tweaks all users would want anyway, it let's you choose your preferred Desktop Environment during install, and it feels like any other distro in terms of getting it ready for use. It doesn't come with any apps, other than core system tools and firefox, which is also good because you can then install whatever you want.and be free of anything you don't want. Also, all the usual hardware gets detected and works out of the box.

I won't go back to any other Linux.

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.

to me the main difference was having to use a different package manager. so no biggie really. and arch has an awesome wiki. the documentation made things too easy so now I use nixos BTW

Honestly it's the most problem-free distribution I've used. I've used fedora, ubuntu, opensuse, and they all are way easier to break and way harder to fix. Once you get arch working it works really reliably and when it occasionally breaks it's easy to fix. I used nixos for a while, and it is more reliable but it's just a little too much effort.

Im also wondering this.

I've tried installing it on 2 different pcs a few times and ive not gotten it to work yet lol. Granted I didnt spend a lot of time on it.

I appreciate you can build the system yourself but its almost choice overload for adhd me and ill end up installing every single package anyway that ill never need, which negates the point of arch.

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

The short answer is because I'm lazy. I might lose 30 min during the system setup instead of 20, and now I have a system that I don't have to worry about until the hardware gives up.

Arch is a rolling release distro, which means it's unstable, which doesn't mean what you think, instead it means that you can update your system indefinitely without worrying about "versions". For example, if you had Ubuntu 20.04 installed on your server, in may you had to update it to 24.04, and that's something that can cause issues. And in 2029 you'll need to go through that again. Arch is just constant updates without having that worry. Which means no library is safe from updates, ergo unstable.

Also the AUR is huge, and I'm a lazy ass who likes to just be able to install stuff without having to add PPAs or installing stuff by hand.

Also there's the whole customize the system, I use a very particular set of programs that just won't come pre installed anywhere, so any system that comes with their own stuff will leave me in a system with double the amount of programs for most stuff which is just wasteful.

Finally there's the wiki, while the vast majority of what's there serves you in other systems, if you're running Arch it's wonderful, it even lists the packages you need to install to solve specific errors.

Believe it or not, it's still less work than NixOS (at least for a daily-driver OS)

After using Debian, mint and Ubuntu off and on for years. I am so much happier running endeavoros. I’ve had no issues with it. It’s stable. I don’t feel like I’m dealing with dependencies and random config battles that I did on mint. It’s been great.

Yes and no to all of those reasons, and many others.

There isn't a right or wrong way to install/use Linux. As the saying goes "you do you". If going through the Arch learning curve doesn't appeal to you, don't do it. If you're the sort of person whose curiosity sometimes leads them to do silly things that aren't necessarily logical but that you find enormously fun and satisfying, then maybe go for it.

I use Arch via Manjaro distribution. Yes, there's some quirks coming from Ubuntu, but basically installing OSS/propreitary software using Pacman/Yay/Add/Remove Software is such a breeze, and it's main selling point to me of Arch so I stay with the distro and say good bye to Debian-based one.

The thing stopping me from using Arch is that most programs come out as debs and you have to wait for them to show up in the AUR. Example: when Mullvad VPN first came out it was only available as a deb. How long did it take to show up in the AUR? Who made that available? Was it the Mullvad folks or someone else? That's the kind of thing that concerns me.

More software I wanted was packaged for Arch than Ubuntu.

Its like buying a pre-built PC vs a custom PC.

They do the same things at the end of the day, but the the custom PC converts the extra time investment into a result that gives better performance and is more suited to your needs.

I've just gotten used to knowing i can get the latest and greatest and AUR makes a lot of stuff easy when it comes to getting stuff not readily available on the package manager. There's not often i can't find something i want or need to not be on there.

I've used both base arch and cachyos. I've landed on cachyos for now because i didn't want to fiddle with games and wine and just wanted them to work and they just do on cachyos. Laptops that i don't expect to game on just get base arch with hyprland installed, just mostly so i can get my tinkering fix from modifying hyprland

Maybe I like the misery.

For me it mostly just came down to years of frustration combating windows to do what i wanted. Arch offers the level of control for me to set things up the way i like them. Was it harder to set up initially than another distribution? Yeah. But it was a worthwhile trade off

It's a misconception that is any "trouble". I'm using CachyOS, which is basically Arch but with additionally optimized repositories and settings. You just install it an use it, like Mint or Ubuntu. It just works, but it's also faster for performance related tasks (especially gaming, but also others), importantly and explicitly without any tinkering.

Quite the opposite, actually: there much less tinkering required to get gaming specific things to "just work", as the tweaks are all there by default. This includes running Windows programs often considered hard to run (through Wine).

I do happen to enjoy and want a rolling release. There's a new kernel released, and I can install it like a day later. New KDE comes out, update is there for me in a few hours. Software is generally up to date, which was such a refreshing experience as I'm used to running Debian server side. Oh what a contrast.

Honestly, in the long term it has been less effort.

If you're an "out-od-the-box" comouter user (web browser, maybe one or two apps, and office suite, then stick with the more conventional distros. If you are very dynamic with your OS, especially 8f you play with a lot of different OSS applications, then Arch get's easier.

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

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!" :)

Because all in one distros have mistakes or bugs, for which fixes are only available in the next release 6-12 months later.

Other times, I know exactly what the problem is and how to fix it, but due to the vendors shenanigans (Ubuntu) it's ironically much harder to fix. Adding extra repos via ppas and managing them is harder than just pulling it from AUR.

Having problems due to a vendor's mistake and being unable to fix them was exactly why I wanted to move away from Windows and macOS. All in one distros kind of fail at addressing that. Arch is basically "fuck it, I'll compile it myself"

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.

It meets their needs and preferences, simple as that. I tried Arch in like 2008, and thought people were crazy for all the trouble it took back then. Nowadays there's a lot of nice distros built on it, so you can get the benefits (such as they may be) without all the low-level tinkering.

I moved to arch because of rolling releases, ubuntu switching to unity fucked my laptop over. Yes the initial install is a bit more work, but the wiki is great and I feel like I have a better understanding of linux after going through the process. Also really not a fan of apt.

Because AUR.

It's actually less trouble. Back when i used ubuntu based distros I ended up using the arch wiki anyway, and I never successfully upgraded from one ubuntu LTS to the next without problems anyway, so I figured why not try the distro that doesn't have upgrades and has amazing docs. It's much more stable.

Rolling releases, great docs, great amount of software available with the package manager, especially with the AUR.

I went through the manual installation a few times and while the general process is annoying and error-prone, after setting up the basics many things worked great out of the box, even the printer I once had. I'm on Endeavour now which mostly does exactly what I want.

I currently use bazzite, but I learned more about Linux by installing arch from scratch than anything else I've ever done with my PC. It was a beautiful experience and I will never forget it.

I recently got a new laptop, and I'm considering installing arch again on the old one again to have a system available that is less restrictive. I'd probably use an installer this time around...but maybe not.

I initially started using it because I needed the newest drivers and back ports on Mint was taking to long, since then I've stuck with rolling release so I don't have to deal with driver hell. I stick with Arch over say Debian Tumbleweed at this point mostly from momentum.

It's a good question and years ago I might have asked the same thing. I'm a minimalist and I really dislike all the extra crap that comes with all-in-one distros these days. Not just installed programs, but also daemons and services that start by default. I hate the idea that I have to go in and manually turn them all off on new installs. I used Ubuntu for a long time but slowly got more and more annoyed at the bloat. The snap situation was the final straw that pushed me to explore other distros. I landed on Arch and really liked it. A new Arch install can be incredibly clean, basically providing nothing more than a command prompt from which you can install what you need. The only stuff running on your machine is what you explicitly put on it. There are a couple things I get annoyed with in Arch, like some baked-in drivers for hardware I don't have, however it's minor enough that I can let it go. I also played with Gentoo but couldn't get comfortable enough to make it my daily driver. Arch is my personal best-balance between cleanliness and effort.

I wanted my computer to be secure but headless. Suse, fedora both had supposed instructions but in classic Linux style they had a bunch of out of date commands and software and it didn't work. Fedora always required a human to enter a password on boot, suse just bricked.

Endeavarch had instructions (a maze of unclear gibberish, to be honest) that actually worked and did what I wanted with minimal fuss and it's been operating well for 2 years.

1. Because I like to. 2. Because it still has the best flexibility for packages. 3. I like using cutting edge releases.

It is also extremely overblown just how "hard" arch is. Either way I know a lot more about my system and how it functions now.

Arch is great for reasons ppl already mentioned, but if i'd start over i'd go with Endevour, purely because its so much easier to install

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.

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

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.

I like the rolling updates, to be honest. Endeavour has been a wonderful and simple experience. Aside from some NVIDIA issues with Wayland it has been a blast.

the distro I'm daily driving uses arch as base so I just ride along

because it's less work. i don't have to strip out what a distro thinks i want. i don't have to worry about major distro releases that might have changes that need manual intervention. if there are updates that need manual intervention, they're small, easy to deal with and usually do not effect me. everything is well documented and standard. packages are installed with default settings/config (to my understanding), so i can easily read upstream documentation and not have to deal with weirdness. getting packages that are obscure is easier. i don't have to worry about upstream having a fix, or supporting something that i need but my distro not having the update in their repo. it's just simpler and easier to manage (for my use case)

It's not really trouble. I use it since 2012 with a few intermediate installs of Debian and Fedora, but I really don't have many issues I can't solve in a few minutes. Rolling release means I never have to do huge upgrades.

Then again, I'm a studied CS expert with 20 years of Linux experience. Wouldn't recommend Arch to people who don't want to exactly know how their system works.

After trying Ubuntu for a few days I decided to jump in head first and install Arch on my daily driver, it's been a struggle but I learned so much about Linux I decided to work as a Sysadmin.

I’m a certified Linux professional of over 15yrs and I have never installed Arch. Not once, never needed it. It offers nothing I can’t either build myself or just install Debian and change what I need it to be.

I've tried Arch - it allows you to make a system that is exactly what you want. So no bloat installing stuff you never need or use. It also gives you absolute control.

On other distros like Fedora, you get a pre configured system set up for a wide range of users. You can reduce down the packages somewhat but you will often have core stuff installed that is more than you'll need as it caters to everyone.

Arch allows you to build it yourself, and only install exactly the things you actually want, and configure then exactly how you want.

Also you learn an awful lot about Linux building your system in this way.

I liked building an arch system in a virtual machine, but I don't think I could commit to maintaining an arch install on my host. I'm happy to trade bloat for a "standard" experience that means I can get generic support. The more unique your system the more unique your problems can be I think. But I can see the appeal of arch - "I made this" is a powerful feeling.

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.

I like learning and having control over my pc. But it's mainly the learning part for me, followed the wiki a second time installing arch on my Thinkpad last week and felt just as satisfied as the first time. But no shame in using archinstall.

It works well for me.

Actually, I am a long-term Debian user (for 15 years) and use it in parallel with Arch, since about ten years, and I had less trouble with Arch: When upgrading from Debian 10 to 12, GNOME broke for me so that I could not log in any more. I spent a day or so to search for the cause - it is related to the user configuration but I could not figure out what it was and I had to time-box the effort, and switched to StumpWM (a tiling window manager, which I had been using before). I had no such problem with Arch, and on top of that I could just install GNOME's PaperWM extension just to give it a try.

You could argue that my failure to upgrade was GNOME's fault, not Debians, and in a way this is true. Especially, GNOME should not hide configuration in inscrutinable unreadable files, and of course it should parse for errors coming from backwards-compatible breaking changes.

But the thing is, for software making many small changes is very often much easier than a few big changes. For example because it is far easier to narrow down the source of a problem. So, it is likely that GNOME on Arch had the same problem between minor upgrades, and fixed it without much fuss.

But you also need to see that Arch is primarily a Desktop/end user system, while Debian is, for example, also a server system. Debian is designed for a far larger range of applications and purposes, and having many small breaking upgrades would likely not work well for these.

Arch is honestly pretty simple compared to what it was like to install Linux in the 90s...

That said, I mostly run Debian, and have a little smattering of arch. Much like running testing & unstable Debian on two of my machines, I have it there to check out new things and for testing purposes. Same goes for arch, I'm using it to test out new things.

With Archinstall its really easy. You still need to be familiar with the Wiki, but its not hard. Tedious maybe. And running all vanilla software is nice. No distro modification.

I use Garuda. Yes, it's Arch based, but it's also all set up for gaming and newbie friendly. I started on Bazzite, then switched to Garuda, it's just as easy.

I saw a gif about some cool hyprland dotfiles and i fell in love.

Instructions said it was designed for arch.

There are many more other reasons i stayed. Its great to actually feel in charge of my system.

Debian/ubuntu has its uses in server reliability but its missing snap for daily use.

Fedora is to close to corporate for my personal interest.

A rolling release means you get new versions of software almost as soon as þey're released, instead of waiting for 6 mos for þe distribution to package and release it.

Even Arch's LTS kernel is updated more frequently þan Debian's. Þe trade-off is rebooting more frequently. I have personally also experienced less breakage upgrading software frequently þan big, all-in-one-shot upgrades. I won't claim þis is þe common experience, but "dependency hell" for me was always Redhat, and þen Debian.

You need a complex system to do something simple. To simply press the gas pedal and fucking go you need an internal combustion engine that is nasty to look at, this confangled monstrosity, harder to manufacture than the batteries that will replace it. When you just drive your car you never have an inkling of the whole mechanism