this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2026
77 points (96.4% liked)

Linux

14017 readers
306 users here now

A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)

Also, check out:

Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Ategon@programming.dev
anzo@programming.dev
dwraf_of_ignorance@programming.dev
77
Users of Arch-based distros, why don't you use pure Arch? (ani.social)
submitted 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by kiri@ani.social to c/linux@programming.dev
117 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

(No provocation)

I see these reasons:

  • newbie
  • lazy (don't wanna edit config files etc.)
  • unique features (like assistant/toolbox, some optimizations like in cachyos)
  • wanna check how different systems are set up (that's rather distrohopping)

Personally, I used manjaro i3 when I was beigginer and wanted to see how tiling WM should be configured (check out ranger config, for example). But after some time, I don't see reasons why not to just customize pure arch (same with debian and debian-based distros).

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] gankouskhan@piefed.zip 1 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

This is me but 25 years as my main os. I just don't care to configure if something exists already so I can do the things I actually care about. It's not the flex that people think it is to install arch. If you can follow the recipe to make boxed Mac and cheese and you can install arch assuming you have do not value your time.

[โ€“] lime@feddit.nu 1 points 14 hours ago

i mean it is a learning experience, at least for beginners. but so is lfs.