• cetvrti_magi@lemmy.world
      41·
      10 months ago

      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.

      • theshatterstone54
        1·
        10 months ago

        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

        • Spectranox@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          1·
          10 months ago

          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.

    • Vik@lemmy.worldEnglish
      8·
      10 months ago

      tier listing distros is such a Linux community thing to do. Wish we’d get past it.

  • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
    3812·
    10 months ago

    Have you actually tried Manjaro or do you just listen to what other people say about it? I find it has no issues and have been daily driving it for like 3 years now. Just because something has negative hype doesn’t mean it’s as terrible as people say.

    • clubb@lemmy.world
      37·
      10 months ago

      I personally don’t understand why anyone would put endeavour os in “why”

    • Sina@beehaw.org
      61·
      10 months ago

      I tried many times, though not recently and I agree with it being worse than just redundant. Sure, it’s usable and maintainable, but it’s objectively a bad idea.

      You can just run vanilla arch, or one of the installers like Endeavor OS and just use BTRFS snapshots to counter breakages instead of Manjaro’s delay thing managed by people I just cannot take very seriously.

  • Papamousse@beehaw.org
    12·
    10 months ago

    I don’t really care, for me “linux” is a kernel, a bunch of gnu utilities, and I take Xfce as desktop. I can use firefox? an editor? cmake? gcc? I’m in business.

    All distros are the same. The main diff is apt/yum/pacman/etc. to distribute packages.

  • theshatterstone54
    1·
    10 months ago

    I can’t believe I’m saying that, but I find myself kinda agreeing with a distro tier list for once.

    Arch, Gentoo, and NixOS are “Elite” because of the leet hackerman stereotype.

    Fedora and Tumbleweed are modern (Fedora with adopting the latest tech, and TW by being a stable and reliable rolling release)

    While I pretty much agree with the “Special” Tier, I feel it’s important to mention the first one (don’t know the name, it was made by Intel and was vsry unique with its own package manager and fully embracing everything systemd has to offer) is a dead project now. Void, Alpine, TAILS and Guix, I agree with. I disagree about Nobara as it’s basically Fedora with some gaming tweaks and a customised GNOME (correct me if I’m wrong).

    Typical is not necessarily bad. It means those distros are popular and commonly run, and there is usually a reason why.

    For the “Why” section, I agree that they are distros I wouldn’t recommend to anyone, but ultimately everyone has the right to run whatever they want. You might think there’s a better option to one of them, so feel free to present it, but remember users have the right to disagree and use whatever they want.

    For tge terrible section: I don’t know enough about Zorin or LinuxFX to comment. Kali is terrible as a regular OS but is great at what it’s built to do (pen testing). I agree on Manjaro.