To be fair, I would see why. Arch isn’t that hard to install anymore so some people see Arch-based distros that are just Arch with GUI installer as useless. I use EndeavourOS just because GUI installer is more convinient to me.
Endeavour is just Arch with a few trinkets on top (calamares, some configs, and a custom repo) I could mostly recreate EndeavourOS in a few days and from there, it’s just about rebuilding the ISO, updating their repo, and fixing bugs (but mostly rebuilding the ISO and updating the packages). Creating a custom repo and Building an ISO are mostly one-off things you need to do. From there, you just update the packages in the repo (which in most cases just means to grab the PKGBUILDs from the AUR) and run a “sudo mkarchiso” every so often.
For EndeavourOS, you’re maintaining:
The EndeavourOS Repo,
The ISO
The Website
For Arch itself, you’re maintaining:
All the Arch Repos
The ISO
The Website
The AUR
Archweb for testing packages
The Arch Wiki
Pacman
All the Arch Tooling (including archiso, which is what Arch-based distros build their ISOs with)
I know, Arch was my first distro (I had a friend coach me) and I used to be addicted to minimal installs…
But that was three years ago, and my life and I have changed a lot. I prioritise consistency, reliability and time-efficiency now over saving ~200MB of RAM on a system with 32GB. Or those “wasted” CPU cycles on an 8C16T 3.6GHz CPU.
So when using the OS is more important than building out the OS, that’s where Endeavour is better. You also get the Endeavour community for support which, in my experience, has been a lot more straightforward than the Arch forums.
I use Fedora Atomic Budgie (Previously Fedora Onyx) now, after multiple Endeavour installs started acting up on me. If I ever left Atomic distros and didn’t go for NixOS (which is highly unlikely), Endeavour would be the one. While Endeavour exists using plain Arch, for a modern desktop OS, is just a waste of time. Yeah, I said it.
I used to be a die-hard Arch user back those few years, so I know them well. I know both of these comments are going to be given mixed reception. But I also know my reasoning is rational and logical. And ultimately, in my experience, the productivity of an install is inversely proportional to the time spent building it.
I should’ve been more explicit in my first comment as to where my point applies, but I know either way the Arch elitists won’t listen to reason. But to quickly make something clear, I don’t dislike Arch. As I said it was my first distro and so will always have that place in my heart, and I respect anyone who makes a reliable system out of it.
Putting Arch in top tier then Endeavour in Why is hilarious
typical arch user
To be fair, I would see why. Arch isn’t that hard to install anymore so some people see Arch-based distros that are just Arch with GUI installer as useless. I use EndeavourOS just because GUI installer is more convinient to me.
Endeavour is objectively better than plain Arch, this list is incredibly subjective.
Endeavour is just Arch with a few trinkets on top (calamares, some configs, and a custom repo) I could mostly recreate EndeavourOS in a few days and from there, it’s just about rebuilding the ISO, updating their repo, and fixing bugs (but mostly rebuilding the ISO and updating the packages). Creating a custom repo and Building an ISO are mostly one-off things you need to do. From there, you just update the packages in the repo (which in most cases just means to grab the PKGBUILDs from the AUR) and run a “sudo mkarchiso” every so often.
For EndeavourOS, you’re maintaining:
The EndeavourOS Repo,
The ISO
The Website
For Arch itself, you’re maintaining:
All the Arch Repos
The ISO
The Website
The AUR
Archweb for testing packages
The Arch Wiki
Pacman
All the Arch Tooling (including archiso, which is what Arch-based distros build their ISOs with)
and more
I know, Arch was my first distro (I had a friend coach me) and I used to be addicted to minimal installs…
But that was three years ago, and my life and I have changed a lot. I prioritise consistency, reliability and time-efficiency now over saving ~200MB of RAM on a system with 32GB. Or those “wasted” CPU cycles on an 8C16T 3.6GHz CPU.
So when using the OS is more important than building out the OS, that’s where Endeavour is better. You also get the Endeavour community for support which, in my experience, has been a lot more straightforward than the Arch forums.
I use Fedora Atomic Budgie (Previously Fedora Onyx) now, after multiple Endeavour installs started acting up on me. If I ever left Atomic distros and didn’t go for NixOS (which is highly unlikely), Endeavour would be the one. While Endeavour exists using plain Arch, for a modern desktop OS, is just a waste of time. Yeah, I said it.
I used to be a die-hard Arch user back those few years, so I know them well. I know both of these comments are going to be given mixed reception. But I also know my reasoning is rational and logical. And ultimately, in my experience, the productivity of an install is inversely proportional to the time spent building it.
I should’ve been more explicit in my first comment as to where my point applies, but I know either way the Arch elitists won’t listen to reason. But to quickly make something clear, I don’t dislike Arch. As I said it was my first distro and so will always have that place in my heart, and I respect anyone who makes a reliable system out of it.